At least 5 dead , 9 injured after pickup truck hits bicyclists from BEHIND

[Sir Ridesalot]

"KALAMAZOO COUNTY, Mich. (NEWSCHANNEL 3) - Newschannel 3 has learned that at least five people have been killed on North Westnedge, near Markin Glen Park, just north of Kalamazoo, after a group of bicyclists were struck from behind by a blue Chevy pickup truck.

It happened around 6:30 p.m. Tuesday evening.

All of those killed were bicyclists riding down the road when a pickup truck came up behind them, and struck the group."

More here

http://wwmt.com/news/local/multiple-bicyclists-hit-killed-in-crash

Condolences to the victims' families and friends.

Cheers

[Tosspot]

That's going to wind up as a murder charge in my opinion.

Reports indicate erratic driving before the incident.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36476440

[avag...@gmail.com]

report read here was cyclists were hit from ahead after the truck 'almost ran over muh foot'

[Sir Ridesalot]

On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 12:56:54 AM UTC-4, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

http://woodtv.com/2016/06/09/charges-expected-today-in-deadly-bicyclist-crash/


"BATTLE CREEK, Mich. (WOOD) — A Battle Creek man accused of hitting nine bicyclists faces five counts of second-degree murder.

Kalamazoo County Prosecutor Jeff Getting filed the charges against Charles Pickett Jr. Thursday."


This is good. I hope they stick and the guy goes away for a long time.

Cheers

[Joerg]

Very sad.

One question is whether we will ever hear the results of the
investigation. Such as lane positions, lighting of the riders,
visibility, level of intoxication of the driver, speed of the truck, and
so on.

Without such follow-up it's hard to learn from these case. I have even
seen people flat-out deny that it was a non-intersection lane case in a
similar deadly crash here in Sacramento. No follow-up info as usual,
zero, but it all points to a cyclist having been in the left lane (two
per direction) preparing to turn off somewhere when a drunk driver in a
truck smashed into her and killed her.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[Duane]

Read the report. It was not an intersection and they were apparently on
the shoulder.

This has nothing to do with lane position or bike lanes or cycling
classes or anything to do with the cyclists. This has to do with some
asshole murdering 5 people and injuring several more who were just
riding their bikes. The only question to me is whether it was
intentional (1st degree murder) or not (second degree murder), otherwise
the rest is irrelevant.

What is there to learn here? Maybe if it was drunk driving and the guy
had priors or maybe if the guy was psychotic and off his meds. But from
the riders' points of view what is there to learn?

[Sir Ridesalot]

Not to mention that this blue truck and driver had been reported a number of times that day for very erratic driving prior to it crashung into those 9 bicyclists. From variious reports i read it wouldn't have mattered where those bicyclist were riding since the truck was all over the road. One guy nearlycoming out of a store or building nearly got hit just seconds before the bicyclists got hit.

Cheers

[Joerg]

Please quote where it said that.

> This has nothing to do with lane position or bike lanes or cycling
> classes or anything to do with the cyclists. This has to do with some
> asshole murdering 5 people and injuring several more who were just
> riding their bikes. The only question to me is whether it was
> intentional (1st degree murder) or not (second degree murder), otherwise
> the rest is irrelevant.
>

It is not. This driver was obvious intoxicated or otherwise out of his
mind but most of the time their reaction is simply so delayed that when
they see something in front of them it's too late. Not necessarily so if
the truck still fits through. Possibly he had veered off the road in
which case staying on the shoulder would not have helped at all. My
point is: We do not know that and there is typically no follow-up
publication.

> What is there to learn here? Maybe if it was drunk driving and the guy
> had priors or maybe if the guy was psychotic and off his meds. But from
> the riders' points of view what is there to learn?
>

A lot. Just one example: I found that the number of times I got into
critical situations because of inattentive (or possibly soused) drivers
has greatly dropped off since I have bright lighting. One of the reasons
is simple. If a driver, especially a drunk one, sees red flashing lights
in the distance one of the first reactions will likely be "Oh no, cops!"
which in many cases will make them slow down.

[Duane]

It was stated in the original report posted here.

>> This has nothing to do with lane position or bike lanes or cycling
>> classes or anything to do with the cyclists. This has to do with some
>> asshole murdering 5 people and injuring several more who were just
>> riding their bikes. The only question to me is whether it was
>> intentional (1st degree murder) or not (second degree murder), otherwise
>> the rest is irrelevant.
>>
>
> It is not. This driver was obvious intoxicated or otherwise out of his
> mind but most of the time their reaction is simply so delayed that when
> they see something in front of them it's too late. Not necessarily so if
> the truck still fits through. Possibly he had veered off the road in
> which case staying on the shoulder would not have helped at all. My
> point is: We do not know that and there is typically no follow-up
> publication.
>
>

The asshole killed 5 people and injured 9. The rest is irrelevant.
Whether they were on the road or on the shoulder is irrelevant. The
asshole hit them from behind.

>> What is there to learn here? Maybe if it was drunk driving and the guy
>> had priors or maybe if the guy was psychotic and off his meds. But from
>> the riders' points of view what is there to learn?
>>
>
> A lot. Just one example: I found that the number of times I got into
> critical situations because of inattentive (or possibly soused) drivers
> has greatly dropped off since I have bright lighting. One of the reasons
> is simple. If a driver, especially a drunk one, sees red flashing lights
> in the distance one of the first reactions will likely be "Oh no, cops!"
> which in many cases will make them slow down.
>

Give me a fucking break. At least 14 people in front of him on bikes,
and he would have seen them if only they had a light?

[Frank Krygowski]

On 6/10/2016 12:43 PM, Joerg wrote:
> I found that the number of times I got into
> critical situations because of inattentive (or possibly soused) drivers
> has greatly dropped off since I have bright lighting. One of the reasons
> is simple. If a driver, especially a drunk one, sees red flashing lights
> in the distance one of the first reactions will likely be "Oh no, cops!"
> which in many cases will make them slow down.

Sounds like you must have gotten into many "critical situations" before.
Otherwise you couldn't know they had dropped off greatly.

To me, that's very odd. I can't remember the last time I got in a
"critical situation" on my bike. Perhaps that has something to do with
riding style?


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Joerg]

It was not. See link above. Please quote.

[...]

>>> What is there to learn here? Maybe if it was drunk driving and the guy
>>> had priors or maybe if the guy was psychotic and off his meds. But from
>>> the riders' points of view what is there to learn?
>>>
>>
>> A lot. Just one example: I found that the number of times I got into
>> critical situations because of inattentive (or possibly soused) drivers
>> has greatly dropped off since I have bright lighting. One of the reasons
>> is simple. If a driver, especially a drunk one, sees red flashing lights
>> in the distance one of the first reactions will likely be "Oh no, cops!"
>> which in many cases will make them slow down.
>>
>
>
> Give me a fucking break. At least 14 people in front of him on bikes,
> and he would have seen them if only they had a light?
>

Quite possibly yes. On a straight stretch of road drivers often see only
the last rider or maybe the last 2-3. It is important to know these things.

My bright lights are a reason why I am sometimes asked to ride last in a
group. Because that affords the whole group better safety.

[Joerg]

On 2016-06-10 10:04, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 6/10/2016 12:43 PM, Joerg wrote:
>> I found that the number of times I got into
>> critical situations because of inattentive (or possibly soused) drivers
>> has greatly dropped off since I have bright lighting. One of the reasons
>> is simple. If a driver, especially a drunk one, sees red flashing lights
>> in the distance one of the first reactions will likely be "Oh no, cops!"
>> which in many cases will make them slow down.
>
> Sounds like you must have gotten into many "critical situations" before.
> Otherwise you couldn't know they had dropped off greatly.
>

I hear a car coming from the rear and it is very easy to discern whether
the braking process is a hard one or a normal one. Now they are almost
all normal, typically where people just let go of the accelerator pedal.

> To me, that's very odd. I can't remember the last time I got in a
> "critical situation" on my bike. Perhaps that has something to do with
> riding style?
>

No, with the roads out here and I am not the only one. I've met people
who even invested in Dinotte rear lights to the tune of more than $100
and reported similar results.

[Frank Krygowski]

Look up "confirmation bias."


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Sir Ridesalot]

What if the car/truck is coming up behind you and NOT braking?

Cheers

[Joerg]

You typically die or get hurt badly. Hence my preference for segregated
bike paths.

The change of that happening while riding on roads is reduced with
bright lighting. Hence I ride with daytime lights. Always.

[Joerg]

No need to. I know it works. So do government agencies which is why
motorcycles must by law operate with daytime lights.

[Duane]

As seems likely in this case since he hit 9 of them.

[Duane]

http://ktla.com/2016/06/07/at-least-5-dead-after-hit-and-run-driver-strikes-cyclists-in-michigan/

Sorry, Andrew Muzi posted this at the same time. It's in this one.

And regardless, they were hit from behind on a straight road.

>
>>>> What is there to learn here? Maybe if it was drunk driving and the guy
>>>> had priors or maybe if the guy was psychotic and off his meds. But
>>>> from
>>>> the riders' points of view what is there to learn?
>>>>
>>>
>>> A lot. Just one example: I found that the number of times I got into
>>> critical situations because of inattentive (or possibly soused) drivers
>>> has greatly dropped off since I have bright lighting. One of the reasons
>>> is simple. If a driver, especially a drunk one, sees red flashing lights
>>> in the distance one of the first reactions will likely be "Oh no, cops!"
>>> which in many cases will make them slow down.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Give me a fucking break. At least 14 people in front of him on bikes,
>> and he would have seen them if only they had a light?
>>
>
> Quite possibly yes. On a straight stretch of road drivers often see only
> the last rider or maybe the last 2-3. It is important to know these things.
>
> My bright lights are a reason why I am sometimes asked to ride last in a
> group. Because that affords the whole group better safety.
>

Having you behind them? Maybe your jams are too loud when you are in
front of them. - sorry, could not resist.

[Joerg]

No. We don't know that.

Quote from OP link: "Witnesses in the area tell us they saw the group
and heard the squealing of tires".

We do not know whether this squealing started before impact, after
impact or whenever. Police investigators will know the answer. But we
might never because nowadays journalism typically ends with the key
story and that's it. There needs to be a follow-up.

[Joerg]

Ok, thanks. If the county attorney said that he must know since he
likely has access to the police report.

> And regardless, they were hit from behind on a straight road.
>

Sure. But there are questions. Did the probably intoxicated driver not
see them at all? Did he see them too late? Did the last rider have a
highly visible rear light? Or did the driver deliberately run into them?

Some of those questions could be answered at this time.

>>
>>>>> What is there to learn here? Maybe if it was drunk driving and the
>>>>> guy
>>>>> had priors or maybe if the guy was psychotic and off his meds. But
>>>>> from
>>>>> the riders' points of view what is there to learn?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A lot. Just one example: I found that the number of times I got into
>>>> critical situations because of inattentive (or possibly soused) drivers
>>>> has greatly dropped off since I have bright lighting. One of the
>>>> reasons
>>>> is simple. If a driver, especially a drunk one, sees red flashing
>>>> lights
>>>> in the distance one of the first reactions will likely be "Oh no,
>>>> cops!"
>>>> which in many cases will make them slow down.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Give me a fucking break. At least 14 people in front of him on bikes,
>>> and he would have seen them if only they had a light?
>>>
>>
>> Quite possibly yes. On a straight stretch of road drivers often see only
>> the last rider or maybe the last 2-3. It is important to know these
>> things.
>>
>> My bright lights are a reason why I am sometimes asked to ride last in a
>> group. Because that affords the whole group better safety.
>>
>
> Having you behind them? Maybe your jams are too loud when you are in
> front of them. - sorry, could not resist.
>

Not sure what you mean with jams.

[Sir Ridesalot]

Are you fucking serious? They were hit from BEHIND. There were NINE bicyclists riding in a GROUP on a STRAIGHT section of road and this driver hit ALL NINE of them killing five and injuring four - two of them seriously.

You're absolutely and inconceivably wrong about this joerg. Unbelievable!

Cheers

[Sir Ridesalot]

Joerg, it appears that you are plain out and out trolling one this! Read the artices in the links I provided. They were hit from behind, on a straight section or road in broad daylight and that section of road had good sight lines!

Cheers

[Duane]

All of your questions make it sound like the victims could or should
have have prevented this. Even if you buy the red blinky in the daytime
thing, that's bullshit. The driver is solely responsible for hitting
someone from behind.

Music.

[jbeattie]

Or the truck passes. Do you not get passed by trucks?

> The change of that happening while riding on roads is reduced with
> bright lighting. Hence I ride with daytime lights. Always.

O.K. Just a digression, but I was riding to work today on a busy road with lots of trucks, buses and cars -- I often post the video of SW Barbur Boulevard with those narrow bridges that put cyclists in the lane. PDOT installed flashers at the bridges with induction loop switches that, for some reason, my plastic Roubaix (which I rode today) will not trip. http://bikeportland.org/2014/03/07/odots-first-ever-bicycle-warning-beacons-start-flashing-next-week-102600

I didn't trip the flashers this morning, and you know what, I was kind of scared. I was going over this narrow bridge with big trucks and cars and buses without any rear flasher and without the benefit of the big, new flashers. I could die! And then I thought, hey, I've been riding on this road for 32 years without giant flashers. I'm wearing a neon yellow/green rain jersey. I'm riding conspicuously. 20 years ago, I didn't have any bike facilities and rode a fog line all the way to downtown.

I like my bike facilities, and the flasher is a nice touch -- except the loop is too close to the bridge and it makes bicyclist jump out at the last minute. But its a nice idea, just poorly implemented. Points for being kind, PDOT. Demerits for being stupid for location and sensitivity. Everyone is not on an iron Mao bike.

Anyway, I lived. The bottom line is that crazy drunks can kill you on a sidewalk, on a separate bike facility . . . in your f****** bed. Google "car drives through [house, barn, store, etc., etc.]

-- Jay Beattie.

[Duane]

Jay maybe you can explain to Joerg about contributory negligence.

"Well your honor my client may have been slightly over the legal limit
but these 9 brightly colored cyclists stretch out in front of him on a
clear straight well lit road really should have had a little blinking
red light if they wanted to be safe..."

[Sir Ridesalot]

I think the State Senator nailed it when she said: "This page has a very interesting comment.

http://wincountry.com/news/articles/2016/jun/08/multiple-fatalities-reported-just-north-of-kalamazoo/

"UPDATE - 6/8 at 10:05 a.m.: State Sen. Margaret O' Brien, R-Portage, has released a statement:

"Kalamazoo County has again experienced a senseless tragedy. Nine people were randomly attacked while enjoying a bicycle ride. No explanation can bring back the lives of the five people killed."

Note that she's calling it a "random attack" not an accident or crash?

Cheers

[Joerg]

Sure he is. I never disputed that. The question is whether at least some
of those situations can be prevented.

Here we have a road that is straight and lined with thick foliage.
Perfect place for intoxicated drivers to fall into a daze. Yes, it is
the truck driver's fault. But it is always good on a bicycle to stick
out. That's what a bright blinking light does and that's why both my
bikes have that. Actually several each.

Usually turned off when around others. But it has happened that someone
snuck up and wanted to listen to the Bluegrass tunes.

[Sir Ridesalot]

If a driver on a clear road in daylight on a straight road with good sight lines can't see a group of NINE bicyclists ahead of his vehicle there's no way in hell that he's going to see a blinking red light!

The state Senator has a very interesting comment.

http://wincountry.com/news/articles/2016/jun/08/multiple-fatalities-reported-just-north-of-kalamazoo/

"UPDATE - 6/8 at 10:05 a.m.: State Sen. Margaret O' Brien, R-Portage, has released a statement:

"Kalamazoo County has again experienced a senseless tragedy. Nine people were randomly attacked while enjoying a bicycle ride. No explanation can bring back the lives of the five people killed."

Cheers

[Joerg]

Sure they do. But sometimes they can't and then I prefer my lights to
alert them in a timely manner that I am in the lane.

>> The change of that happening while riding on roads is reduced with
>> bright lighting. Hence I ride with daytime lights. Always.
>
> O.K. Just a digression, but I was riding to work today on a busy
> road with lots of trucks, buses and cars -- I often post the video of
> SW Barbur Boulevard with those narrow bridges that put cyclists in
> the lane. PDOT installed flashers at the bridges with induction loop
> switches that, for some reason, my plastic Roubaix (which I rode
> today) will not trip.
> http://bikeportland.org/2014/03/07/odots-first-ever-bicycle-warning-beacons-start-flashing-next-week-102600
>
> I didn't trip the flashers this morning, and you know what, I was
> kind of scared. I was going over this narrow bridge with big trucks
> and cars and buses without any rear flasher and without the benefit
> of the big, new flashers. I could die! And then I thought, hey,
> I've been riding on this road for 32 years without giant flashers.
> I'm wearing a neon yellow/green rain jersey. I'm riding
> conspicuously. 20 years ago, I didn't have any bike facilities and
> rode a fog line all the way to downtown.
>

That is probably what some of the Kalamazoo riders thought as well.
Until Tuesday :-(

It's the same argument that people used when they were ranting against
having to wear safety belts in their cars. After all, grandpa didn't
even have belts in his DeSoto and he lived to a ripe old age.

> I like my bike facilities, and the flasher is a nice touch -- except
> the loop is too close to the bridge and it makes bicyclist jump out
> at the last minute. But its a nice idea, just poorly implemented.
> Points for being kind, PDOT. Demerits for being stupid for location
> and sensitivity. Everyone is not on an iron Mao bike.
>

The Gazelle steel frame on my early 80's road bike also doesn't trip
some loops. I've even had cases where laying it didn't trigger. Which is
a major inconvenience when that is for a left turn at a traffic light.
The designers of such loop circuits don't always seem to be the
brightest bulbs in the chandelier.

> Anyway, I lived. The bottom line is that crazy drunks can kill you
> on a sidewalk, on a separate bike facility . . . in your f****** bed.
> Google "car drives through [house, barn, store, etc., etc.]
>

Now I'd like to see how a car would hit me on my way to Placerville on
this route:

http://www.mtbproject.com/photos/mtb/36/50/1103650_large_19bb521371328168.jpg

There is only one car in Davis which could theoretically crash into me
but even that would require a tight squeeze:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY85eExk7Zo

Last Friday I went up there. Over 20 miles of peace and quiet. Birds
chirping, squirrels running up trees, no cars. It is absolutely
relaxing, assuming one can properly handle a mountain bike on loose rocks.

Same on Monday when I took the El Dorado Trail trail west. About the
only danger you have to watch out for on this route is this and it is
very rare:

http://inedc.com/1-5954.html

[Joerg]

Sure there is. First, nine cyclists are not riding abreast but most
likely single file. So the driver sees only one, or in his case possible
just one small fuzzy "obstruction" because he may have been intoxicated.
Road bikers ride at constant speed, close together and don't swerve much
so they can look like a static object to soused drivers.

A bright red blinking light is way different. It changes pattern, so
will be noticed much earlier. It is also often mistook for police
cruiser lights. A cop or maybe a sobriety checkpoint is the absolute
nightmare for an intoxicated driver and will get their attention unless
they are already in complete stupor.

> The state Senator has a very interesting comment.
>
> http://wincountry.com/news/articles/2016/jun/08/multiple-fatalities-reported-just-north-of-kalamazoo/
>
> "UPDATE - 6/8 at 10:05 a.m.: State Sen. Margaret O' Brien,
> R-Portage, has released a statement:
>
> "Kalamazoo County has again experienced a senseless tragedy. Nine
> people were randomly attacked while enjoying a bicycle ride. No
> explanation can bring back the lives of the five people killed."
>

But not much news in terms of new facts or investigation results.
Whether it was a deliberate attack is speculation at this point. It's
possible though. There are people who hate cyclists and the threshold
towards acting out on that hate can drop with alcohol and drugs.

[Duane]

Well the choice of words "randomly attacked" sort of implies intent, no?

[Duane]

On 10/06/2016 3:34 PM, Joerg wrote:
> On 2016-06-10 11:54, jbeattie wrote:

<snip>

>>> The change of that happening while riding on roads is reduced with
>>> bright lighting. Hence I ride with daytime lights. Always.
>>
>> O.K. Just a digression, but I was riding to work today on a busy
>> road with lots of trucks, buses and cars -- I often post the video of
>> SW Barbur Boulevard with those narrow bridges that put cyclists in
>> the lane. PDOT installed flashers at the bridges with induction loop
>> switches that, for some reason, my plastic Roubaix (which I rode
>> today) will not trip.
>> http://bikeportland.org/2014/03/07/odots-first-ever-bicycle-warning-beacons-start-flashing-next-week-102600
>>
>>
>> I didn't trip the flashers this morning, and you know what, I was
>> kind of scared. I was going over this narrow bridge with big trucks
>> and cars and buses without any rear flasher and without the benefit
>> of the big, new flashers. I could die! And then I thought, hey,
>> I've been riding on this road for 32 years without giant flashers.
>> I'm wearing a neon yellow/green rain jersey. I'm riding
>> conspicuously. 20 years ago, I didn't have any bike facilities and
>> rode a fog line all the way to downtown.
>>
>
> That is probably what some of the Kalamazoo riders thought as well.
> Until Tuesday :-(
>
> It's the same argument that people used when they were ranting against
> having to wear safety belts in their cars. After all, grandpa didn't
> even have belts in his DeSoto and he lived to a ripe old age.
>

Pick some other case to make your point about DRLs.

<snip>

[Joerg]

On 2016-06-10 13:00, Duane wrote:
> On 10/06/2016 3:43 PM, Joerg wrote:
>> On 2016-06-10 12:13, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

[...]

>>> The state Senator has a very interesting comment.
>>>
>>> http://wincountry.com/news/articles/2016/jun/08/multiple-fatalities-reported-just-north-of-kalamazoo/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "UPDATE - 6/8 at 10:05 a.m.: State Sen. Margaret O' Brien,
>>> R-Portage, has released a statement:
>>>
>>> "Kalamazoo County has again experienced a senseless tragedy. Nine
>>> people were randomly attacked while enjoying a bicycle ride. No
>>> explanation can bring back the lives of the five people killed."
>>>
>>
>> But not much news in terms of new facts or investigation results.
>> Whether it was a deliberate attack is speculation at this point. It's
>> possible though. There are people who hate cyclists and the threshold
>> towards acting out on that hate can drop with alcohol and drugs.
>>
>
> Well the choice of words "randomly attacked" sort of implies intent, no?

And on exactly what proof did she based that?

[jbeattie]

Hardly. We're not talking about easily implemented safety improvements like seat-belts. You're suggesting a separate, parallel transportation system and that it is too scary and too unsafe to ride without one. If we all lived our lives according to that paradigm, we would quit riding.

I don't know of any country, planet or universe where there is an entirely separate transportation system just for bicycles. Even in the bike heaven of Amsterdam, a lot of the facilities are on the road or within ten feet of the road and separated by curbs or medians and other minor obstacles easily overcome by determined drunks.

-- Jay Beattie.

-- Jay Beattie

[Duane]

I don't know. On what proof do you base your DRL comment having any
relevance?

--
duane

[Joerg]

That is a risk we all have to take and I do that weekly. There is no
bike path system between here and El Dorado Hills and Folsom. It starts
in Folsom and from there on west it is very good. So what people do is
truck their bikes to Folsom, unload and commute the rest of the way. If
I had to commute daily I'd probably do the same. For once or twice a
week I just clench my teeth and ride but only with the ship brightly lit.

> I don't know of any country, planet or universe where there is an
> entirely separate transportation system just for bicycles. Even in
> the bike heaven of Amsterdam, a lot of the facilities are on the road
> or within ten feet of the road and separated by curbs or medians and
> other minor obstacles easily overcome by determined drunks.
>

I lived in the Netherlands for more than five years and racked up around
40000 miles on bicycles while there, some of those miles in the neighbor
countries Germany and Belgium. That might sound like a lot but not to
other people living there. The contrast between these countries could
not have been larger. All major roads wherever I ventured in the
Netherlands had nice bike paths. In Germany there was the occasional
bike path and in Belgium, almost nada.

Yeah, theoretically a car driver could spin out, slide across some turf
and onto the bike path. But that is rare. I cannot remember any
accidents like the one in this thread. I felt super safe there as a
cyclist. After moving to Germany, not anymore and so I became a weekend
and evening rider. After moving to the US I quit riding altogether for
15 years. Now that at least some bike infrastructure started to mature I
began riding again, a lot. This is all not just my opinion but also that
of the vast majority of cyclists I know. And I know quite a few.

Investing money into bike infrastructure is very much justified. For
one, it is much cheaper per mile than motor vehicle infrastructure.
Secondly, building massive car-only freeways but almost nothing for
cyclists makes no sense. Lcukily Claifornia lawmakers have noticed that
and reacted accordingly (no more major road overhauls without putting in
at least bike lanes).

[Joerg]

I didn't, because it it just a comment, no more. All I was saying is
that it does make sense to investigate whether or not the last rider had
a flashing rear light. Everyone knows that this greatly increases the
visibility of a cyclist.

"Random attack" is an accusation. It might be true and what this driver
did was despicable but still, without proof I would never make an
accusation like that.

[Duane]

It makes no sense at all to attribute negligence to the victims here.

> "Random attack" is an accusation. It might be true and what this driver
> did was despicable but still, without proof I would never make an
> accusation like that.
>

Chances are a state senator wouldn't either.

--
duane

[Joerg]

And where have I done that?

>> "Random attack" is an accusation. It might be true and what this driver
>> did was despicable but still, without proof I would never make an
>> accusation like that.
>>
>
> Chances are a state senator wouldn't either.
>

That remains to be seen. There was no mention of any statement by the
perpetrator to that effect.

[Duane]

You're saying if they were using lights they would have greatly increased
their visibility. Don't you see the inference there?

>
>>> "Random attack" is an accusation. It might be true and what this driver
>>> did was despicable but still, without proof I would never make an
>>> accusation like that.
>>>
>>
>> Chances are a state senator wouldn't either.
>>
>
> That remains to be seen. There was no mention of any statement by the
> perpetrator to that effect.
>

There was no mention of his being drunk either. Personally as I said to
begin with, it would only affect the difference between first and second
degree murder.

Looking at that wide smooth shoulder, I can tell you that if that was my
group we would have been riding there and NONE of us would have had lights
on at 6:30 on a summer afternoon. And half of us would now be dead. Lights
or no lights. Make your point somewhere else. The victims here in no way
contributed to this other than by riding their bikes.

--
duane

[Joerg]

No. I said there should be an investigation into all aspects of this.
Start of vehicle braking, driver intoxication, rider positions, and yes,
whether there were lights.

And yes, lights do increase visibility. It is not required in the US
and, therefore, there could never be culpability on the part of the
riders. All I am saying is that is does reduce the chance of a collision.

>>
>>>> "Random attack" is an accusation. It might be true and what this driver
>>>> did was despicable but still, without proof I would never make an
>>>> accusation like that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Chances are a state senator wouldn't either.
>>>
>>
>> That remains to be seen. There was no mention of any statement by the
>> perpetrator to that effect.
>>
>
> There was no mention of his being drunk either. Personally as I said to
> begin with, it would only affect the difference between first and second
> degree murder.
>

That is why, at this point and until it is known, one shall neither say
the driver was intoxicated nor should one say he randomly attacked. It
is inapproriate until proven.

> Looking at that wide smooth shoulder, I can tell you that if that was my
> group we would have been riding there and NONE of us would have had lights
> on at 6:30 on a summer afternoon. And half of us would now be dead. Lights
> or no lights. Make your point somewhere else. The victims here in no way
> contributed to this other than by riding their bikes.
>

I would be on the shoulder with bright lights. Even a noon with the
glistening sun high above.

[Duane]

Why should anything about the riders be investigated?

> And yes, lights do increase visibility. It is not required in the US
> and, therefore, there could never be culpability on the part of the
> riders. All I am saying is that is does reduce the chance of a collision.
>
>

So make your point elsewhere.

>>>
>>>>> "Random attack" is an accusation. It might be true and what this driver
>>>>> did was despicable but still, without proof I would never make an
>>>>> accusation like that.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Chances are a state senator wouldn't either.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That remains to be seen. There was no mention of any statement by the
>>> perpetrator to that effect.
>>>
>>
>> There was no mention of his being drunk either. Personally as I said to
>> begin with, it would only affect the difference between first and second
>> degree murder.
>>
>
> That is why, at this point and until it is known, one shall neither say
> the driver was intoxicated nor should one say he randomly attacked. It
> is inapproriate until proven.
>
>

He's guilty in either case.

>> Looking at that wide smooth shoulder, I can tell you that if that was my
>> group we would have been riding there and NONE of us would have had lights
>> on at 6:30 on a summer afternoon. And half of us would now be dead. Lights
>> or no lights. Make your point somewhere else. The victims here in no way
>> contributed to this other than by riding their bikes.
>>
>
> I would be on the shoulder with bright lights. Even a noon with the
> glistening sun high above.
>

Your choice. Make your point somewhere else.

--
duane

[W. Wesley Groleau]

On 06-10-2016 16:54, Duane wrote:
> Read the report. It was not an intersection and they were apparently on
> the shoulder.

And that shouldn't matter. In most US states, in a rear-end collision,
the guy in back is automatically at fault. Why should it be different
if the guy in front has pedals?

--
Wes Groleau

[Duane]

Or daytime rear lights? It shouldn't.

--
duane

[W. Wesley Groleau]

On 06-11-2016 00:17, Duane wrote:
> Chances are a state senator wouldn't either.

A politician will say anything they think they can get away with. And
Trump is proving they can get away with anything.

--
Wes Groleau

[Sir Ridesalot]

Absolutely friggin incredible! NINE bicyclists riding in a group on a sunny day on a straight section of road with good sight lines get struck from BEHIND by a pickup truck that had a least three 911 calls made about it being driven in a very erratic manner within an hour of it striking all nine bicyclist and killing five of them, seriously injuring two of them and injuring the other two and it's the bicyclists' fault decause they didn't have a red blinking tail light? Plus, the driver tried to get away on foot but was apprehended. Plus the truck was incapable of moving under its own power after the crash just goesto show how severe the impacts were. Iconceivable that you believethat in this case DLRs or blinking lights would have prevented this.

The driver isd facing FIVE charges of MURDER and some lesser charges but it's the bicyclists who are at fault according to you. Astounding!

Cheers

[W. Wesley Groleau]

On 06-10-2016 21:34, Joerg wrote:
> The Gazelle steel frame on my early 80's road bike also doesn't trip
> some loops. I've even had cases where laying it didn't trigger. Which is
> a major inconvenience when that is for a left turn at a traffic light.
> The designers of such loop circuits don't always seem to be the
> brightest bulbs in the chandelier.

I've found that riding at the edge of the loop has a better chance than
riding through the middle.

--
Wes Groleau

[W. Wesley Groleau]

?? You asked him to talk about them somewhere else, and then you bring
them up gratuitously here?

--
Wes Groleau

[Sir Ridesalot]

Trump has absolutely nothing to do with this!

I agree that in most cases it's the vehicle rear ending a vehicle that's judged to be at fault and that it should be the same for a vehicle rear ending aicycle or group of bicyclists.

Cheers

[Joerg]

Because we can all learn from it. For the same reason that aircraft
crashes are always investigated in great detail even if the pilot was
not at fault.

>> And yes, lights do increase visibility. It is not required in the US
>> and, therefore, there could never be culpability on the part of the
>> riders. All I am saying is that is does reduce the chance of a collision.
>>
>>
>
> So make your point elsewhere.
>

No, this is a very appropriate place.

>>>>
>>>>>> "Random attack" is an accusation. It might be true and what this driver
>>>>>> did was despicable but still, without proof I would never make an
>>>>>> accusation like that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Chances are a state senator wouldn't either.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That remains to be seen. There was no mention of any statement by the
>>>> perpetrator to that effect.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There was no mention of his being drunk either. Personally as I said to
>>> begin with, it would only affect the difference between first and second
>>> degree murder.
>>>
>>
>> That is why, at this point and until it is known, one shall neither say
>> the driver was intoxicated nor should one say he randomly attacked. It
>> is inapproriate until proven.
>>
>>
>
> He's guilty in either case.
>

It's got nothing to do with it. One shall not make accusations until
proven. So far all we know is that he negligently killed and hurt
people. Even people who do such evil things have the right to due
process. The times of lynch mobs are long gone.

[...]

[Joerg]

I never said that. I said it can help, even with erratic drivers.

> Plus, the driver tried to get away on foot but was apprehended. Plus
> the truck was incapable of moving under its own power after the crash
> just goesto show how severe the impacts were. Iconceivable that you
> believethat in this case DLRs or blinking lights would have prevented
> this.
>
> The driver isd facing FIVE charges of MURDER and some lesser charges
> but it's the bicyclists who are at fault according to you.
> Astounding!
>

What nonsense. I never said that.

[Joerg]

Yes, sometimes that helps. Same when laying the bike down where I try to
have the seat tube and the top tube along the buried wires. Problem is,
sometimes you can't see the buried wires because they poured new
blacktop all over the road. At one such place I lay the bike but keep it
a few degrees off the pavement, then swing it back and forth like a
scythe until it triggers.

What I find absolutely hazardous is when you can leave gated communities
only via car because of such inadequately designed loops. What if a
panic set in? What if a propane tank exploded and people must flee on foot?

[jbeattie]

The ten zillion cyclists around here seem to manage on traffic calmed streets and in bike lanes (sometimes super-wide bike lanes) https://www.flickr.com/photos/bikeportland/26749158621?ytcheck=1 https://www.flickr.com/photos/bikeportland/26749146761/ That's every day traffic. Eeek . . . a truck! https://www.flickr.com/photos/bikeportland/4951771834/

My side of town is less facility intensive. http://tinyurl.com/jy3uzhb That's where the flasher didn't go off for me. http://tinyurl.com/hug7wvu http://tinyurl.com/hug7wvu Here's something scary for you, on my way to work, I look over my shoulder before hitting the first bridge, and this is what I see: http://tinyurl.com/j4hr87h It's hair raising, super scary and impossible to ride -- except that about a zillion people do it every day.

I also take little goat roads over the hills or a less strenuous route with a bike lane over lower, rolling hills. http://tinyurl.com/gugmzl8 That's a nice route, but the sinage requires you to ride on your head in places: http://tinyurl.com/zc5lhl5


-- Jay Beattie.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Joerg:

> But it is always good on a bicycle to stick
>out. That's what a bright blinking light does and that's why both my
>bikes have that. Actually several each.

In a Philadelphia (PA - USA) newspaper article they quoted a New Jersey
State Highway Patrolman as referring to tail lights on a car parked on
the shoulder as "Drunk Magnets".
--
Pete Cresswell

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Joerg:

>"Random attack" is an accusation. It might be true and what this driver
>did was despicable but still, without proof I would never make an
>accusation like that.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by
carelessness." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
--
Pete Cresswell

[John B.]

On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 07:28:23 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>

wrote:

>On 2016-06-07 21:56, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> "KALAMAZOO COUNTY, Mich. (NEWSCHANNEL 3) - Newschannel 3 has learned
>> that at least five people have been killed on North Westnedge, near
>> Markin Glen Park, just north of Kalamazoo, after a group of
>> bicyclists were struck from behind by a blue Chevy pickup truck.
>>
>> It happened around 6:30 p.m. Tuesday evening.
>>
>> All of those killed were bicyclists riding down the road when a
>> pickup truck came up behind them, and struck the group."
>>
>> More here
>>
>> http://wwmt.com/news/local/multiple-bicyclists-hit-killed-in-crash
>>
>> Condolences to the victims' families and friends.
>>
>
>Very sad.
>
>One question is whether we will ever hear the results of the
>investigation. Such as lane positions, lighting of the riders,
>visibility, level of intoxication of the driver, speed of the truck, and
>so on.
>
>Without such follow-up it's hard to learn from these case. I have even
>seen people flat-out deny that it was a non-intersection lane case in a
>similar deadly crash here in Sacramento. No follow-up info as usual,
>zero, but it all points to a cyclist having been in the left lane (two
>per direction) preparing to turn off somewhere when a drunk driver in a
>truck smashed into her and killed her.

Probably not as apparently these kind of details aren't "NEWS". A good
photo of broken bodies scattered down the side of the road gets front
page priority, but a court session with days of evidence presentation
doesn't even rate a place on the back page.

It might even be said that the news media is not there to inform you.
It is there to make money.
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 12:05:11 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
<i_am_cyc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 2:42:59 PM UTC-4, Duane wrote:
>> On 10/06/2016 2:02 PM, Joerg wrote:
>> > On 2016-06-10 10:53, Duane wrote:
>> >> On 10/06/2016 1:12 PM, Joerg wrote:
>> >>> On 2016-06-10 10:02, Duane wrote:
>> >>>> On 10/06/2016 12:43 PM, Joerg wrote:
>> >>>>> On 2016-06-10 07:54, Duane wrote:

>> >>>>>> Read the report. It was not an intersection and they were
>> >>>>>> apparently on
>> >>>>>> the shoulder.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>

>> >>>>> Please quote where it said that.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> It was stated in the original report posted here.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> It was not. See link above. Please quote.
>> >>>
>> >>> [...]
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> http://ktla.com/2016/06/07/at-least-5-dead-after-hit-and-run-driver-strikes-cyclists-in-michigan/
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Sorry, Andrew Muzi posted this at the same time. It's in this one.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Ok, thanks. If the county attorney said that he must know since he
>> > likely has access to the police report.
>> >
>> >
>> >> And regardless, they were hit from behind on a straight road.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Sure. But there are questions. Did the probably intoxicated driver not
>> > see them at all? Did he see them too late? Did the last rider have a
>> > highly visible rear light? Or did the driver deliberately run into them?
>> >
>> > Some of those questions could be answered at this time.
>> >
>>
>> All of your questions make it sound like the victims could or should
>> have have prevented this. Even if you buy the red blinky in the daytime
>> thing, that's bullshit. The driver is solely responsible for hitting
>> someone from behind.
>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>>> What is there to learn here? Maybe if it was drunk driving and the
>> >>>>>> guy
>> >>>>>> had priors or maybe if the guy was psychotic and off his meds. But
>> >>>>>> from
>> >>>>>> the riders' points of view what is there to learn?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> A lot. Just one example: I found that the number of times I got into

>> >>>>> critical situations because of inattentive (or possibly soused)
>> >>>>> drivers
>> >>>>> has greatly dropped off since I have bright lighting. One of the
>> >>>>> reasons
>> >>>>> is simple. If a driver, especially a drunk one, sees red flashing
>> >>>>> lights
>> >>>>> in the distance one of the first reactions will likely be "Oh no,
>> >>>>> cops!"
>> >>>>> which in many cases will make them slow down.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>

>> >>>> Give me a fucking break. At least 14 people in front of him on bikes,
>> >>>> and he would have seen them if only they had a light?
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Quite possibly yes. On a straight stretch of road drivers often see only
>> >>> the last rider or maybe the last 2-3. It is important to know these
>> >>> things.
>> >>>
>> >>> My bright lights are a reason why I am sometimes asked to ride last in a
>> >>> group. Because that affords the whole group better safety.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Having you behind them? Maybe your jams are too loud when you are in
>> >> front of them. - sorry, could not resist.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Not sure what you mean with jams.
>> >
>>
>> Music.
>
>I think the State Senator nailed it when she said: "This page has a very interesting comment.

>
>http://wincountry.com/news/articles/2016/jun/08/multiple-fatalities-reported-just-north-of-kalamazoo/
>
>"UPDATE - 6/8 at 10:05 a.m.: State Sen. Margaret O' Brien, R-Portage, has released a statement:
>
>"Kalamazoo County has again experienced a senseless tragedy. Nine people were randomly attacked while enjoying a bicycle ride. No explanation can bring back the lives of the five people killed."
>

>Note that she's calling it a "random attack" not an accident or crash?
>
>Cheers

I suggest that what a state senator says might be very different from
what the public attorney that has to try the case would say. After
all, election time is fast approaching.
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 22:17:15 -0000 (UTC), Duane <sp...@flarn.com>

:-) Do you listen to what the political candidates say :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 15:48:47 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>

My guess that all the various details are being very stringently
investigated.

I can imagine what the results would be if an elected attorney whether
State, County or City were to fail in his prosecution of the miscreant
due to a lack of evidence. And, I imagine that he/she can too.


--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 11:54:57 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
<jbeat...@msn.com> wrote:

>On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 10:43:00 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
>> On 2016-06-10 10:40, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>> > On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 1:17:17 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
>> >> On 2016-06-10 10:04, Frank Krygowski wrote:

>> >>> On 6/10/2016 12:43 PM, Joerg wrote:
>> >>>> I found that the number of times I got into
>> >>>> critical situations because of inattentive (or possibly soused) drivers
>> >>>> has greatly dropped off since I have bright lighting. One of the reasons
>> >>>> is simple. If a driver, especially a drunk one, sees red flashing lights
>> >>>> in the distance one of the first reactions will likely be "Oh no, cops!"
>> >>>> which in many cases will make them slow down.
>> >>>

>> >>> Sounds like you must have gotten into many "critical situations" before.
>> >>> Otherwise you couldn't know they had dropped off greatly.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> I hear a car coming from the rear and it is very easy to discern whether
>> >> the braking process is a hard one or a normal one. Now they are almost
>> >> all normal, typically where people just let go of the accelerator pedal.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> To me, that's very odd. I can't remember the last time I got in a
>> >>> "critical situation" on my bike. Perhaps that has something to do with
>> >>> riding style?
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> No, with the roads out here and I am not the only one. I've met people
>> >> who even invested in Dinotte rear lights to the tune of more than $100
>> >> and reported similar results.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Regards, Joerg
>> >>
>> >> http://www.analogconsultants.com/
>> >
>> > What if the car/truck is coming up behind you and NOT braking?
>> >
>>
>> You typically die or get hurt badly. Hence my preference for segregated
>> bike paths.
>
>Or the truck passes. Do you not get passed by trucks?
>

>> The change of that happening while riding on roads is reduced with
>> bright lighting. Hence I ride with daytime lights. Always.
>
>O.K. Just a digression, but I was riding to work today on a busy road with lots of trucks, buses and cars -- I often post the video of SW Barbur Boulevard with those narrow bridges that put cyclists in the lane. PDOT installed flashers at the bridges with induction loop switches that, for some reason, my plastic Roubaix (which I rode today) will not trip. http://bikeportland.org/2014/03/07/odots-first-ever-bicycle-warning-beacons-start-flashing-next-week-102600
>
>I didn't trip the flashers this morning, and you know what, I was kind of scared. I was going over this narrow bridge with big trucks and cars and buses without any rear flasher and without the benefit of the big, new flashers. I could die! And then I thought, hey, I've been riding on this road for 32 years without giant flashers. I'm wearing a neon yellow/green rain jersey. I'm riding conspicuously. 20 years ago, I didn't have any bike facilities and rode a fog line all the way to downtown.
>

>I like my bike facilities, and the flasher is a nice touch -- except the loop is too close to the bridge and it makes bicyclist jump out at the last minute. But its a nice idea, just poorly implemented. Points for being kind, PDOT. Demerits for being stupid for location and sensitivity. Everyone is not on an iron Mao bike.
>
>Anyway, I lived. The bottom line is that crazy drunks can kill you on a sidewalk, on a separate bike facility . . . in your f****** bed. Google "car drives through [house, barn, store, etc., etc.]
>
>-- Jay Beattie.

I doubt that the average motor vehicle wants to deliberately run into
bicycles and given half a chance will not. I have, by accident, gotten
into situations where if the car had proceeded without slowing or
stopping I would have been hit, and the car does slow, or even stop in
some instances.

On the other hand, Thailand has a terrifying traffic record and in the
majority of the fatal accidents one or both of the driver had "drink
taken" as the Irish so quaintly put it.

--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 21:10:43 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid>
wrote:

or "Never assume malice when stupidity will suffice"" from the same
source.
--
cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

On 6/10/2016 6:42 PM, Joerg wrote:
> On 2016-06-10 15:58, Duane wrote:
>> Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com> wrote:
>>> On 2016-06-10 15:39, Duane wrote:
>>>> Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2016-06-10 15:17, Duane wrote:
>>>>>> Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2016-06-10 14:46, Duane wrote:
>>>>>>>> Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2016-06-10 13:00, Duane wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/06/2016 3:43 PM, Joerg wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2016-06-10 12:13, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

-snippity snip-

>> He's guilty in either case.

> It's got nothing to do with it. One shall not make
> accusations until proven. So far all we know is that he
> negligently killed and hurt people. Even people who do such
> evil things have the right to due process. The times of
> lynch mobs are long gone.

"Let's hang him first, then we can have a trial"
-Governor Rob Blagojevich, 2009

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[John B.]

The newly elected president of the Philippines is encouraging citizens
to kill criminals. He effectively stated that he supports vigilantism
in a nationally-televised speech, and that "If he fights, and he
fights to the death, you can kill him".
--
cheers,

John B.

[Joerg]

On 2016-06-10 17:38, jbeattie wrote:
> On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 3:05:37 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
>> On 2016-06-10 14:40, jbeattie wrote:

[...]

That looks all fine. We've got nothing like that here in town, just roads.

> My side of town is less facility intensive.
> http://tinyurl.com/jy3uzhb

That I would not enjoy at all. I'll do it sometimes but grudgingly. If a
whole swath of land is like that as it was here until a few years ago I
use the car for errands instead of the bike.

That's where the flasher didn't go off
> for me. http://tinyurl.com/hug7wvu http://tinyurl.com/hug7wvu

That's ok. Cyclists got a wide shoulder and have to weave in to
circumvent a little obstruction. No big deal.


> ... Here's

> something scary for you, on my way to work, I look over my shoulder
> before hitting the first bridge, and this is what I see:
> http://tinyurl.com/j4hr87h It's hair raising, super scary and
> impossible to ride -- except that about a zillion people do it every
> day.
>

There's enough space. I ride one of those every week except we've got
less space. One of the sections:

https://goo.gl/maps/bMtGtUzWpam

But during the week there are big cement and gravel trucks because of a
cement business being located here. The cement guys have to ride on time
because their load can only have a certain number of drum rotations
until they get to the pouring location.

> I also take little goat roads over the hills or a less strenuous
> route with a bike lane over lower, rolling hills.
> http://tinyurl.com/gugmzl8 That's a nice route, but the sinage
> requires you to ride on your head in places:
> http://tinyurl.com/zc5lhl5
>

Those are luxurious compared to many of ours. The Portland area is way
more bike-friendly than our area. Until you get to Folsom where that
attitute changes.

If you ride long roads out here that have no shoulder but fast traffic
this or worse happens regularly:

http://fox40.com/2016/02/27/family-of-comatose-bicyclist-seeking-answers-following-hit-and-run/

[Joerg]

What supposedly attracts them even more is the up and down motion of
pedals, especially when the yellow reflectors in there throw back some
light. However, if you have something like this light on my rod bike
(mine is not from PWD though) most people think there's a cop car in the
distance:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvWjLbgling

It gets their attention and that is the whole purpose. Of course, none
of this helps if an intoxicated person has reached the state of almost
complete stupor and gets behind the steering wheel.

[Joerg]

Sadly that is so. Unfortunately the police also does not release much.
This is very different in the world of aerospace where, months later,
you always get a published report over what the investigators found.
Even if if was a lone personal aircraft. Down to exactly which cylinder
of the engine sucked in a valve.

> It might even be said that the news media is not there to inform you.
> It is there to make money.
>

At least our paper has a "Whatever happened in the case of ..." section.

[avag...@gmail.com]

Michigan: Charges in Deaths of Cyclists

A prosecutor filed murder charges on Thursday against the driver of a pickup truck that struck a group of bicyclists, killing five of them and seriously injuring four others. The prosecutor, Jeffrey Getting of Kalamzoo County, charged the driver, Charles Pickett Jr., 50, of Battle Creek, with five counts of second-degree murder and four of reckless driving in the crash Tuesday in Cooper Township, north of Kalamazoo. The bicyclists ranged in age from 40 to 74 and were part of a group that called itself the Chain Gang. The cyclists were five miles into a weekly 30-mile ride when they were struck from behind on a road in the western Michigan countryside. The police said that officers had received complaints about a pickup being driven erratically and were searching for it minutes before the crash. (AP)

[Duane]

No DUI.

Jay can clarify but I find:

Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as: 1) an intentional killing
that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of
passion"; or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's
obvious lack of concern for human life.

So the woman that called this an attack appears to have had reason to do
so.


--
duane

[Joerg]

A murder charge is not a murder conviction.

While I find that driver's behavior despicable we still have the concept
"innocent until proven guilty" in the US. One can publicly call it
attack or murder once that is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it
was indeed the case. Before such process it is IMO not appropriate to do so.

[jbeattie]

Michigan has a really weird penal code that defines "second degree murder" any murder that is not "first degree murder." I quickly looked at the Michigan penal code and didn't see any definition of "second degree murder," and it appears that the state is still in the stone-age and uses common law definitions: the intent necessary to support second-degree murder "is defined as the intent to kill, the intent to cause great bodily harm, or the intent to do an act in wanton and wilful disregard of the likelihood that the natural tendency of such behavior is to cause death or great bodily harm." People v Goecke, 457 Mich 442, 464; 579 NW2d 868 (1998).

So, the guy who mowed down the bicyclists could have been acting intentionally or with a "wanton and willful" disregard of the safety of others -- which could be driving drunk. The Michigan statute appears to give prosecutors incredible latitude when charging murder -- which is a major criticism of common law charges and one reason states are moving toward the Model Penal Code. The MPC clearly spells out the elements of each crime including the necessary intent. Oregon is one of the few states that has adopted major portions of the MPC. http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/163.115

-- Jay Beattie

[AMuzi]

You are correct so far as it goes, and this will be
adjudicated at some point, but a reasonable and successful
defense seems unlikely. Similar here:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-heroin-motorcycle-crash-death-met-20160610-story.html

[Joerg]

Yes, it is quite clear that the guy will be convicted. Just of exactly
what we don't know yet which is why I find statements about it
inapproriate. Hopefully he'll be in prison for a long time to think
about what he has done.

It's got nothing to do with this case but shows how constraint in
judgment is initially best: I know a guy who is crippled for life after
a driver behaved erratically, veered onto the wrong side of the road and
smashed head-on into his vehicle at high speed. That case might have
looked like reckless driving but from what I was told it turned out that
driver had suffered a heart attack behind the wheel.

[Sir Ridesalot]

Good grief! The driver who killed those five bicyclists and injured four more of the group of nine bicyclist had been reported driving erratically for at least 1/2 to 1 hour BEFORE he drove into those bicyclists. This is NOT a case of a sudden onset of erratic driving but a case of prolonged erratic driving. There were at least THREE calls to 911 reporiting him driving erratically BEFORE he hit those bicyclists! P{erhaps that's why he is now charged with FIVE counts of MURDER!

Cheers

[W. Wesley Groleau]

On 06-11-2016 13:54, AMuzi wrote:
> -snippity snip-

FINALLY! Thank you!

--
Wes Groleau

[W. Wesley Groleau]

On 06-11-2016 01:42, Joerg wrote:
> It's got nothing to do with it. One shall not make accusations until
> proven. So far all we know is that he negligently killed and hurt
> people. Even people who do such evil things have the right to due
> process. The times of lynch mobs are long gone.

It does seem fairly unlikely that he killed and hurt people.
Whether negligently or intentionally is not as clear.

--
Wes Groleau

[jbeattie]

The reports are so strange -- he fled the scene. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1B2-5sjnw0 He didn't flee the scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQJBliv0POQ
Hmmm.

I hope they make the charges stick. Sure, it's pitch-forks and torches, but I think the likelihood that Charles Pickett Jr. has a legal excuse is extremely remote. If he did, it would be in the news. And if he had some medical condition that caused him to drive erratically for over an hour, he should have pulled over, parked the truck and called for help -- or at most, driven to a hospital. We clearly do not have all of the facts, but I get the sense that more facts will just make things worse for Mr Pickett.

-- Jay Beattie.

[W. Wesley Groleau]

On 06-11-2016 23:55, W. Wesley Groleau wrote:
> On 06-11-2016 01:42, Joerg wrote:
>> It's got nothing to do with it. One shall not make accusations until
>> proven. So far all we know is that he negligently killed and hurt
>> people. Even people who do such evil things have the right to due
>> process. The times of lynch mobs are long gone.
>
> It does seem fairly unlikely that he killed and hurt people.

oops, that "un" should not be there!

[Barry Beams]

Start a separate thread if you want to talk about tail blinkies vs solid on tail and brake lighting same as cars have.

Blame the victim statements such as inferring that maybe they wouldn't have been hit if they had a schizoblink pattern light on their tail are insensitive at best. Like the 'Dead song, their "gone, nothing's gonna bring'em back".
The press isn't saying that the bikers were or weren't wearing helmets, or any other nonsense. The coverage I've seen is reporting this as any other serious crime that took lives. Kudos to the Kalamazoo press. shame on anyone who brings up blame the victim statements.

[W. Wesley Groleau]

On 06-12-2016 00:42, Barry Beams wrote:
> On Saturday, June 11, 2016 at 3:02:01 PM UTC-7, W. Wesley Groleau wrote:
>> On 06-11-2016 23:55, W. Wesley Groleau wrote:
>>> On 06-11-2016 01:42, Joerg wrote:
>>>> It's got nothing to do with it. One shall not make accusations until
>>>> proven. So far all we know is that he negligently killed and hurt
>>>> people. Even people who do such evil things have the right to due
>>>> process. The times of lynch mobs are long gone.
>>>
>>> It does seem fairly unlikely that he killed and hurt people.
>>
>> oops, that "un" should not be there!
>>
>>> Whether negligently or intentionally is not as clear.
>

> Start a separate thread if you want to talk about tail blinkies vs solid on tail and brake lighting same as cars have.
>
> Blame the victim statements such as inferring that maybe they wouldn't have been hit if they had a schizoblink pattern light on their tail are insensitive at best. Like the 'Dead song, their "gone, nothing's gonna bring'em back".
> The press isn't saying that the bikers were or weren't wearing helmets, or any other nonsense. The coverage I've seen is reporting this as any other serious crime that took lives. Kudos to the Kalamazoo press. shame on anyone who brings up blame the victim statements.

You need to pay more attention. What you just posted is obviously not a
response to what you quoted.

--
Wes Groleau

[John B.]

One might question why, if the drivers actions were so erratic that
three calls were made to 911 (which I assume were forwarded to the
police) over what seems to be a one hour period, the police apparently
ignored it?
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 00:02:49 +0100, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:

>Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com> considered Fri, 10 Jun 2016

>16:42:08 -0700 the perfect time to write:
>
>>On 2016-06-10 15:58, Duane wrote:
>>> Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2016-06-10 15:39, Duane wrote:
>>>>> Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2016-06-10 15:17, Duane wrote:
>>>>>>> Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2016-06-10 14:46, Duane wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2016-06-10 13:00, Duane wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/06/2016 3:43 PM, Joerg wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2016-06-10 12:13, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>

>>> Why should anything about the riders be investigated?
>>>
>>
>>Because we can all learn from it. For the same reason that aircraft
>>crashes are always investigated in great detail even if the pilot was
>>not at fault.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> And yes, lights do increase visibility. It is not required in the US
>>>> and, therefore, there could never be culpability on the part of the
>>>> riders. All I am saying is that is does reduce the chance of a collision.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> So make your point elsewhere.
>>>
>>
>>No, this is a very appropriate place.

>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Random attack" is an accusation. It might be true and what this driver
>>>>>>>> did was despicable but still, without proof I would never make an
>>>>>>>> accusation like that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Chances are a state senator wouldn't either.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>

>>>>>> That remains to be seen. There was no mention of any statement by the
>>>>>> perpetrator to that effect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There was no mention of his being drunk either. Personally as I said to
>>>>> begin with, it would only affect the difference between first and second
>>>>> degree murder.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is why, at this point and until it is known, one shall neither say
>>>> the driver was intoxicated nor should one say he randomly attacked. It
>>>> is inapproriate until proven.

>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> He's guilty in either case.
>>>
>>

>>It's got nothing to do with it. One shall not make accusations until
>>proven. So far all we know is that he negligently killed and hurt
>>people. Even people who do such evil things have the right to due
>>process. The times of lynch mobs are long gone.
>>

>It seems that the DA has already decided to make accusations, and it's
>very unlikely to have been without evidence - 5 counts of murder 2,
>meaning it was deliberate, but without premeditation. And they would
>not have charged him if they weren't reasonably confident of getting a
>conviction. Simply fleeing the scene would have been sufficient as a
>holding charge, if there was much need for further investigation, or
>if they weren't sure they could show some degree of intent, it would
>have been vehicular homicide, not murder 2.
>Of course they aren't going to go into much detail on the evidence at
>this point, because they won't be wanting to contaminate the jury
>pool.
>
>If someone is actually intending to drive into you, being lit up like
>a Christmas tree isn't going to stop them - if anything, it will make
>you an easier target.
>
>But cases like this are exceedingly rare - so much so that this even
>made the news over here in the UK. It's the very rarity that makes it
>news-worthy. The steady death too on pedestrians is so commonplace
>that it barely even makes the local papers.
>
>Maybe you should be telling those pedestrians to stick little blinking
>red lights all over themselves instead.
>And of course, always wear a foam hat.

Realizing that State laws vary, what exactly does "charging" mean in a
criminal case? Can an individual be "charged" and subsequently
released without a court ruling of some sort?

I had assumed that it meant something like the " public"(district,
county, state, federal) attorney reckoned that the guy might have done
it and had at a least minimal amount evidence to show the possibility
and charging meant that he could be formally held, pending future
decisions.

But if tomorrow something comes up to show that he couldn't possibly
have done it do they just turn him loose? Does he have a recourse? Can
he sue someone for being unjustly charged?
--
cheers,

John B.

[Sir Ridesalot]

Did it EVER occur to you that between the time the calls were made and the guy hit the bicyclists that the police WERE LOOKING for that truck?

Cheers

[Sir Ridesalot]

Now you've proven that you're trolling!

The driver was in the truck when it hit the bicyclists. The truck was so badly damage that it couldn't be driven away. The driver of that truck got out of it and tried to leave the scene. he was apprehended before he could leave.ergo, he's the driver that killed five bicyclists and injure four others for a total of nine hits out of nine bicyclist in that group.

Cheers

[John B.]

How so? I've asked for a definition of legal terminology and you get
all excepted and frantic.

If you can calm down for a minute, please explain what a badly damaged
truck and 5 dead people have to do with a question regarding the legal
definition of the word "charge".

(and for Gods sake, try and remember to take your meds tomorrow)
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 23:19:42 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot

From what has been posted here it appears that there were three calls
made to 911 reporting a truck operating erratically made in hour.

Now, I have a limited experience in calling 911 but my understanding
is that when you make an emergency call for, say a truck driving
erratically, I would suppose that the 911 operator would ask you
"where" and if you receive 3 reports telling you "where" in one hour I
would think that a reasonably alert individual could get a fair idea
of where this truck might be, and maybe call the radio cars and tell
them to have a look.

But maybe not.
--
cheers,

John B.

[avag...@gmail.com]

cyclist group was unorganized, social, riding in the street, difficult to see under the conditions.... cyclists were aware of.....group has prior difficulties in traffic. Members of group are know alcoholics or drug users. personal background checks show physical impairments, psychological instability and probable criminal behavior. Several bicycles report a history of serious mechanical malfunction. Owner mechanics had badly done work needing redo by LBS. Not all cycles were using rear lighting or cheap light...when....adequate lighting was/is available for a few dollars more...
Group member fataltities were inexperienced cyclists recently buying a new bike.

The group's motor vehicle record show an above average number of tickets and citations including DUI. One member recently finished serving time in the state prison for CHILD MOLESTING.

awful. absolute dregs.

[Joerg]

On 2016-06-11 22:17, John B. wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 00:02:49 +0100, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com> considered Fri, 10 Jun 2016
>> 16:42:08 -0700 the perfect time to write:
>>
>>> On 2016-06-10 15:58, Duane wrote:
>>>> Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2016-06-10 15:39, Duane wrote:
>>>>>> Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2016-06-10 15:17, Duane wrote:
>>>>>>>> Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com> wrote:

[...]

That's how it is. Someone please correct this if not accurate:

A person does something really bad like in this case, gets caught and is
locked up in jail. Charges must be formally filed within a short time,
not sure what that is, IIRC something like two days. Else the person
cannot be held in jail any longer. There are exceptions to this rules
such as in terrorism cases.

Now the person sits in jail and a judge can either set bail or not. In
this case I hope they don't because the driver has shown that he is a
flight risk.

The person locked up has the right to a trial in due course, they can't
hold them for months or forever like in some rogue countries. The person
can waive that right, for example if he or she is innocent and hopes
that this allows more thorough collection of evidence that can help
prove such innocence. Not going to happen in this case.

> But if tomorrow something comes up to show that he couldn't possibly
> have done it do they just turn him loose?

Yes.


> ... Does he have a recourse? Can he sue someone for being unjustly charged?
>

That would be an uphill battle. If rogue behavior or dishonesty on the
part of police or the DA can be proven then the jailed person can sue.

[Joerg]

Think about it: A truck is driven erratically and most likely at high
speed north of 50mph. How much ground can that truck driver cover in an
hour? How many times could he have turned off somewhere and go in
another direction? How much of that vast area can the average police
department cover when they have, say, five cruisers and five officers
available for the chase but are, for obvious reasons, not allowed to be
tearing down residential streets at such unsafe speeds?

Even if they catch up with the guy there is very often the risk that the
guy panics, steps on in and now tears down a residential street at 90mph
instead of an already unsafe 50mph. Happened here in Sacramento and
ended horribly. Since that time they put limits on high-speed chases in
residential areas.

The police and others seem to have handled the situation quite well in
this case and caught the guy quickly.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 6/11/2016 10:31 AM, Joerg wrote:
>
>
> If you ride long roads out here that have no shoulder but fast traffic
> this or worse happens regularly:
>
> http://fox40.com/2016/02/27/family-of-comatose-bicyclist-seeking-answers-following-hit-and-run/

How regularly, Joerg? Once a week? Or once every ten years, as in
other places? And how big an area are you including in your scare story?

How regularly do motorists die in that area? How many motorists die
between bicyclist deaths? The national averages are about 35,000
motorist deaths per year vs. about 730 bicyclists, so maybe 50 motorist
deaths per bike death. Subtract the bicyclists who are blatantly
violating laws, and the numbers are even better for the bicyclists.

Are you still afraid of the monsters under your bed, as well?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 6/10/2016 7:50 PM, Joerg wrote:
> On 2016-06-10 16:15, W. Wesley Groleau wrote:
>> On 06-10-2016 21:34, Joerg wrote:
>>> The Gazelle steel frame on my early 80's road bike also doesn't trip
>>> some loops. I've even had cases where laying it didn't trigger. Which is
>>> a major inconvenience when that is for a left turn at a traffic light.
>>> The designers of such loop circuits don't always seem to be the
>>> brightest bulbs in the chandelier.
>>
>> I've found that riding at the edge of the loop has a better chance than
>> riding through the middle.
>>
>
> Yes, sometimes that helps. Same when laying the bike down where I try to
> have the seat tube and the top tube along the buried wires. Problem is,
> sometimes you can't see the buried wires because they poured new
> blacktop all over the road. At one such place I lay the bike but keep it
> a few degrees off the pavement, then swing it back and forth like a
> scythe until it triggers.

This may help you:
http://bikeportland.org/2010/09/27/bike-science-making-sense-out-of-signal-sensors-39517

It doesn't cover every loop type, but you're an electrical engineer; you
should be able to get the idea.

>
> What I find absolutely hazardous is when you can leave gated communities
> only via car because of such inadequately designed loops. What if a
> panic set in? What if a propane tank exploded and people must flee on foot?

"Danger! Danger!" And it's not just propane tanks! What if the
monsters under the beds start coming out???

But... um... wait. How many times have those tragedies actually
occurred, Joerg?


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 6/10/2016 1:44 PM, Joerg wrote:
> On 2016-06-10 10:22, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 6/10/2016 1:17 PM, Joerg wrote:
>>> On 2016-06-10 10:04, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 6/10/2016 12:43 PM, Joerg wrote:
>>>>> I found that the number of times I got into
>>>>> critical situations because of inattentive (or possibly soused)
>>>>> drivers
>>>>> has greatly dropped off since I have bright lighting. One of the
>>>>> reasons
>>>>> is simple. If a driver, especially a drunk one, sees red flashing
>>>>> lights
>>>>> in the distance one of the first reactions will likely be "Oh no,
>>>>> cops!"
>>>>> which in many cases will make them slow down.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds like you must have gotten into many "critical situations"
>>>> before.
>>>> Otherwise you couldn't know they had dropped off greatly.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I hear a car coming from the rear and it is very easy to discern whether
>>> the braking process is a hard one or a normal one. Now they are almost
>>> all normal, typically where people just let go of the accelerator pedal.
>>>
>>>
>>>> To me, that's very odd. I can't remember the last time I got in a
>>>> "critical situation" on my bike. Perhaps that has something to do with
>>>> riding style?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, with the roads out here and I am not the only one. I've met people
>>> who even invested in Dinotte rear lights to the tune of more than $100
>>> and reported similar results.
>>
>> Look up "confirmation bias."
>>
>
> No need to. I know it works.

I knew a guy who knew that his copper bracelets worked against
arthritis. He was still sore all the time, but they still worked.

And lots of people know a St. Christopher's medal works really well, too.

Painting a bike red makes it faster, as we all know. That works.

Lucky socks win games. Washing a bike makes it rain. Buying a kayak
causes a drought.

But you haven't told us how often you got into "critical situations"
before installing your magic lights! Was it daily? Weekly? Monthly?


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 6/10/2016 6:09 PM, Joerg wrote:
> All I was saying is
> that it does make sense to investigate whether or not the last rider had
> a flashing rear light. Everyone knows that this greatly increases the
> visibility of a cyclist.

No, everyone does NOT know that. Lots of people _believe_ it, but
that's not the same think as knowing it.

Again: I've driven sag on our club's century ride for something like 20
years. In recent years, daytime blinkies have become more common. But
they only time they've ever made a cyclist more visible was when he was
in a dark tunnel of trees, and there has NEVER been a time where the
light made a practical difference in visibility. I have always seen
every cyclist in plenty of time - like, from at least 100 yards back.

If you want to promote these for dense fog, I'll accept that. But most
of the eye-scorchers are serious overkill even for night riding.
They're hell on any cyclist riding behind.

Above all, it's slimy to even hint at blaming these victims when they
violated no law.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 6/10/2016 6:05 PM, Joerg wrote:
>
>
> Yeah, theoretically a car driver could spin out, slide across some turf
> and onto the bike path. But that is rare.

Are you pretending that crashes like this one are NOT rare???


--
- Frank Krygowski

[avag...@gmail.com]

Above all, it's slimy to even hint at blaming these victims when they

violated no law.'


blaming the cyclist is the center here.

we, as intelligent cyclists will consider both sides or more.

dial up 5333 West Northnedge or North Westnedge in Goo Earth then use the time system for 6:35PM

we're buying....

[Bertrand]

>> All I was saying is
>> that it does make sense to investigate whether or not the last rider had
>> a flashing rear light. Everyone knows that this greatly increases the
>> visibility of a cyclist.

> No, everyone does NOT know that. Lots of people _believe_ it, but
> that's not the same think as knowing it.

> Again: I've driven sag on our club's century ride for something like 20
> years. In recent years, daytime blinkies have become more common. But
> they only time they've ever made a cyclist more visible was when he was
> in a dark tunnel of trees, and there has NEVER been a time where the
> light made a practical difference in visibility. I have always seen
> every cyclist in plenty of time - like, from at least 100 yards back.

This is the experience of one person, an avid cyclist, who was actively
looking for other cyclists as part of an organized cycling event. Your
impressions might not be the same as those of a more typical American driver
who's often distracted, rarely thinks about bicycles, and certainly isn’t
looking for them. I don't know if blinkies help much or not, but your
observations aren't convincing. Do you have any other data?

[Frank Krygowski]

The main data I have is that daylight "didn't see him" hits-from-behind
are a very rare kind of car-bike crash. I may be able to look up the
percentage, but it's very small. There are much more important car-bike
crash mechanisms to worry about.

To trade anecdotes: I've been an avid adult cyclist for well over 40
years. That includes lots of commuting, touring, day rides, club rides,
shopping rides, international rides, etc. Not only have I never
experienced this crash type, but I've never come close. I can't recall
any of my many cycling friends or fellow club members experiencing this
crash type.

I know of one guy who on an empty country road had a motorist blare his
horn long and loud, then purposely graze the cyclist. The cyclist did
not crash, BTW. But that was pretty obviously a deliberate attack, not
an "I didn't see him" incident. And as mentioned, no light will prevent
that sort of super-rare attack.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 09:39:14 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>
wrote:

Agreed, but both the description and at least one photo shows and
describes the road as "a rural two lane road". Not an area in a
crowded city so it wasn't a crowded chase. The Kalamazoo police
department has 21 officers assigned to traffic control, over I have no
idea what area, and they state that they provide 24 hour coverage.

I'm not saying that did or didn't but I am saying that three 911 calls
within an hour describing a vehicle being operated erratically should,
perhaps, have attracted some attention.
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 09:27:52 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>
wrote:

I don't think that is complete, which was why I asked the question. I
think that there may be other steps in the process.

Can a person be "charged" and then forced to sit in jail for some
period with no further actions on the part of the legal system? If so
what are "indictments" how do they fit into the picture?
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

Not to argue your responses but I do believe that a cyclist is far
more likely to notice details about a bicycle he passes while driving
an auto than a non cyclist.

While I do have a flashing red light on my bikes and I do notice other
cyclists with them I've seen no evidence that car drivers do, or do
not, notice them. Although, like the helmet, "it might help".
--
cheers,

John B.

[Joerg]

The 6ths amendment of our constitution guarantees a speedy trial (in
most cases), so "some period" is rather limited. Here is info about that:

http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment6/annotation02.html#1