Not pretty, but they've released pics of the scene and the bikes (not gory, but your mind fills in a lot...). One of the photos is of a broken mirror. And look at the damage on the front of the truck. No way a mirror or a flourescent top is going to save anyone from this guy. Clearly hit everyone at full speed.....

http://www.mlive.com/...tml#incart_big-photo

"I have a Varia and ride with it often...



...I find it useful for me in situations where I am riding out on a country road and am only being passed sporadically. In those situations I will see the unit light up before I hear the car approaching. I will typically look back to visually see what is approaching me and move over to the far side of the road. I find it helpful in those situations and if you are often riding on those types of roads (I'm jealous!) I would recommend them. "

This is basically how I find it helpful as well. Sometimes in windy conditions I have had cars passing me at the same time I hear them. It will do nothing to stop them from hitting me if they want too. It can give you a gauge of how fast the vehicle is approaching too.

Debating adding a mirror. For the price it can't hurt to try. I don't mind the trainer, but outside is better.

---

Brian

The 3 foot law is a joke.

They have it now in Calif and I have not seen it change one persons driving habits around me with their car.

Laws fix nothing.

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

Is this 3ft law a minimum allowable clearance distance when passing cyclists? If do that's a ridiculous figure for starters and as you say s law alone won't change anything. Here (Ireland), the suggested minimum is 1.5m (5ft) but there is no law that I'm aware of.

My thoughts and prayers are with all these families. I am heartbroken over this. They never saw it coming. Just awful! We have all had our close calls on the open road and I ask my slowywitch mates to be safe out there. Even being safe is not a guarantee when you see this type of tradegy.

horrific photos of the bikes http://www.mlive.com/...tml#incart_big-photo

---

http://harvestmoon6.blogspot.com
https://www.caringbridge.org/visit/katasmit

Calling it an accident tends to excuse the driver, when no evidence exists that it was unintentional and/or unavoidable.

First of all this is absolutely horrible news. I felt sick just reading it. It could have been anyone on this forum, who was out for a group ride with friends.


With regards to your statement, that I have quoted, in North America across almost all jurisdictions, what is truly extraordinary, is the responsibility shedding that goes on, and yes, you are right - it's starts with the language. It's not an "accident" - not unless there was some catastrophic mechanical failure on the part of the vehicle - which does happen, but is VERY rare. 90% or more of motor vehicle incidents are cause, simply and plainly by operator error and or grossly poor choices made on the part of drivers! Yet it seems the entire system, starting with the language used, through to the courts is set up, to relieve the driver of as much responsibility as possible.


Thus you have drivers, who have seriously injured cyclists, other motorists, or anyone else, and even killed people, get off, with statements such as, "I didn't see them". That's often enough, to release them of any responsibility. But isn't seeing where you are going, and what's going on, when you are driving a motor vehicle a critical and essential skill for operating the vehicle? Isn't that a BIG part of Drivers Ed, and the test for the Drivers Licence? Yet, if you hit someone, seriously injure them, you say you didn't see them, and the whole thing is framed like an Act-of-God Accident - "That's unfortunate, please don't do that again"!


The numbers of people killed on the roads each year ( in all incidents) is staggering, but it never really makes any news. No one does anything about it. And the mayhem just goes on and on and on!

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

I am an attorney who has represented many cyclist who have been hit by irresponsible drivers. In almost all cases the insurance company defense raises the issue of perspicuity and perception reaction time. Usually, I think the defense is a load of horse crap. That said, I am of the opinion the most effective safety device a rider can employ is a bright, rapidly flashing red light. They are cheap and get drivers' attention. The flashing may even attract the attention of the drunks and the distracted. Please get one and use it -every ride, dawn, dusk, day and night.

Yep, minimum

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

Sasquatch, this is a gem. Thank you for adding it. It's particularly significant from you.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

It made the national 6pm Nightly News NBC

The three best-selling vehicles in the US are all trucks. The Ford F-series (700,000), Chevy/GMC Silverado (600,000) and Ram (450,000) lead the pack. That's 1.65 million trucks per year right there. You have to go to #4 (Toyota Camry) before you find a car on the top selling list. Americans love trucks.

I'm not disagreeing about the blinking red light; I ride with one -- a Dinotte in fact and it doesn't get much brighter. But I noticed about :50 into this video that one of the bikes that was hit did have a blinking light: http://www.wzzm13.com/...bicyclists/235907309. I remember seeing something years ago suggesting that drunk drivers are drawn to blinking lights and I've always wondered if that is true -- not that this case provides any evidence one way or the other (especially since we haven't yet had confirmation that he was drunk). Just kind of a question that's always in my mind. I err on the side of protecting against the more frequent distracted driver than the drunk driver, I guess, and use my tail light every time I ride.

Such a horrible senseless tragedy. My heart goes out to all those affected, and the entire community of Kalamazoo.

Have any of you ever come close to hitting a cyclist or runner who was wearing black, going in the wrong direction, running a stop sign, weaving? No? I guess walking on water is nice. Don't lump this driver with everyone who has ever had the misfortune of hitting someone. Certainly, many of those people deserve scorn. Let's let the court system decide who those people are. And if you are upset that insurance companies settle the claims so the driver is not punished, no plaintiff is forced to settle.

Finally, if you are an attorney, you know that the defense attorneys defend the driver. Not the insurance company. I would think you would get that distinction. If not, you may want to brush up on the rules of fiduciary duties to clients.

All that aside, your advice is spot on. So is this advice....get more insurance. Because not everyone uses those blinking lights. And cyclists are sometimes hard to see, and sometimes act like idiots.

I just hope the driver gets a fair trial. And gets convicted...and spends the rest of his life in jail.

If he was drunk he will get some time. If he tried to flee he will get some time. Otherwise, good chance he gets a pretty light sentence. That is the reality of our legal system.

I remember seeing this guy driving up lee hill right after his slap on the wrist sentence.

http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_23160300/christopher-loven-sentenced-home-monitoring-2009-crash-that

With the Varia, when the approaching vehicle is 200 yards behind you, the head unit displays a marker on the bottom right of the screen, and as the vehicle approaches, the marker moves up the screen. So you know very accurately how fast the driver is coming and when he is going to come by you (when the marker is at the top right). When I'm on particularly sketchy roads (without decent shoulder) and/or areas where I feel like yokels are trying to hit me, I often game the passing vehicle situation such that I position myself closer to the median than is necessary as the vehicle approaches and then rapidly pop over aggressively to the right just as the vehicle is going to pass. This gives me an extra cushion for drivers who are intentionally trying to nick me or drive me off the road, and it makes me feel a lot safer.

Driver name released

http://woodtv.com/...as-battle-creek-man/

“Up to the possibility of a murder charge. If there’s evidence he was under the influence of alcohol or drugs, operating while under the influence causing death is a possibility,”

So killing while driving sober/legal speed limit/valid license is OK, while killing while drunk/drugged is a crime?

I understand that is how our legal system works, but that is just really f*cked up. Our whole "traffic law" is ass backwards: protecting the bullies and typically blaming the most vulnerable victims (those outside of a vehicle).


Just venting. Carry on.

---

Two wheels good. Four wheels bad.

Glad to read they are considering murder charge a possibility. They will charge whatever they think they can convict on.

We have 4' here in PA. But the only people that really know about it cyclists, and the Amish. Frankly, I think the only value in these laws is after-the-fact for prosecution purposes in the rare event that someone is actually charged with a crime for hitting something other than another car.

---

Pete Githens
Reading, PA

And his Facebook page is still up. Looks like one classy dude.

---

Pete Githens
Reading, PA

Here's the thing. Traffic is traffic.

If you pull out in front of of a car, you used poor judgement, made a mistake. If they die, is that murder? No. Should you get jail time? probably not. Should the driver be held more liable because the vehicle the other person is operating is inherently more dangerous? Running a red light, or blowing a stop sign, or speeding excessively, unsafe pass, is different.

Once you get behind the wheel drunk however, you are automatically impaired and negligent of any action. Worse, if the manner that the vehicle is being operated is wreckless, IMO it jumps to murder.

---

TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com

Things don't just fail. ALL collisions have a cause. A mechanical cause still goes back to someone - poor maintenance, poor design, poor manufacture - but someone was negligent somewhere to cause the collision. Things don't just fail without cause.
There hasn't been an actual accident in over 100 years.

I'll give a pass to the first 40 years of driving cause there were no accepted practices for the most part - just try to drive a Model T some time!

None of that is relevant here. 9 cyclists didn't "pull out in front of" the truck.

I think we're talking murder vs. manslaughter, not murder vs. "cyclists fault." Given that 911 calls about the driver's behavior started well before the crash, establishing liability for the crash won't be all that difficult in court.