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

On 2016-06-10 15:39, Duane wrote:
Joerg wrote:
On 2016-06-10 15:17, Duane wrote:
Joerg wrote:
On 2016-06-10 14:46, Duane wrote:
Joerg 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:


[...]

The state Senator has a very interesting comment.

http://wincountry.com/news/articles/...-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?


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


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.


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


And where have I done that?


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


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.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Joerg wrote:
On 2016-06-10 15:39, Duane wrote:
Joerg wrote:
On 2016-06-10 15:17, Duane wrote:
Joerg wrote:
On 2016-06-10 14:46, Duane wrote:
Joerg 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:


[...]

The state Senator has a very interesting comment.

http://wincountry.com/news/articles/...-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?


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


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.


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


And where have I done that?


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


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.


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

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

W. Wesley Groleau wrote:
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?


Or daytime rear lights? It shouldn't.

--
duane

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

On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 6:09:03 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-06-10 14:46, Duane wrote:
Joerg 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:


[...]

The state Senator has a very interesting comment.

http://wincountry.com/news/articles/...-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?


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


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.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

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

On 06-11-2016 01:08, Duane wrote:
W. Wesley Groleau wrote:
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?

Or daytime rear lights? It shouldn't.

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

--
Wes Groleau

On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 7:11:32 PM UTC-4, W. Wesley Groleau wrote:
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


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

On 2016-06-10 15:58, Duane wrote:
Joerg wrote:
On 2016-06-10 15:39, Duane wrote:
Joerg wrote:
On 2016-06-10 15:17, Duane wrote:
Joerg wrote:
On 2016-06-10 14:46, Duane wrote:
Joerg 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:


[...]

The state Senator has a very interesting comment.

http://wincountry.com/news/articles/...-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?


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


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.


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


And where have I done that?


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


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.


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.

[...]

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/