Camilo

That's incredible. Is it a bona fide statistic or hyperbole to make a point?

Not a bad strategy. I don't use the thought of them being drunk, but just ride as defensively, predictably, and proactively as possible at all times.

It's a shame that it's so dangerous where you ride that you have to actually limit your riding because of it. I feel fortunate I've never lived nor ridden in a place that makes me constantly afraid. Cautious? yes. But not actually worrying or afraid.

rekmeyata

Since all indications are pointing to the driver purposely trying to hit the cyclists...I agree with the death sentence; but knowing our judicial system he'll probably get 10 years with time served. I would even go a bit further and more barbaric death sentence and that is to run him over with his own truck he used to run those cyclists over...yeah I know, I'm one sick motha.

JoeyBike

I read the statistic back in the mid '80s. Due to MADD and now UBER the number is likely a tad lower. And the drinking age back then was 18. Louisiana (the entire state) is a tad higher than the national average but New Orleans (Orleans Parish) is off the charts for drinking and driving. Not necessarily hammered but enough alcohol to impair function. It's cultural and people don't even think about it. They go out, eat and drink, then drive. Almost every person I know does it, some to extreme. This paragraph from Frommer's Travel Guide will give you some insight:

"Drinking Laws [New Orleans] -- ...Alcoholic beverages are available round-the-clock, 7 days a week. Bars can stay open all night in New Orleans, and liquor is sold in grocery and liquor stores. You’re allowed to drink in public, but not from a glass or bottle. Bars will provide a plastic “go cup” into which you can transfer your drink as you leave (and some have walk-up windows for quick and easy refills)."

We even have "Drive-Through" daiquiri shops - they put a piece of tape over the straw hole in the lid when they hand it to you to beat the "open container" laws. Now how many drivers do you think will NOT rip the tape off and jam a straw in the hole immediately with an expensive frozen drink in their grimy hands? And when you are out for your morning Giro with your buds on Saturday or Sunday at sunrise you will be sharing the road with all of the drunks driving home from the bars and clubs.

I can not find any current statistics regarding the 50% claim I made. I would not be surprised if it were even higher on weekends and holidays.

It raises the bar when you know half of them are under the influence. You learn what days and times to never ride and are careful all the rest of the time ESPECIALLY rear-end collisions.

Yeah. I gave up recreational cycling a couple years ago. I am still car-free but only cycle when I must (getting to work, doctor, grocery, etc.) I found other things to do. Luckily I have lots of interests outside of cycling.

CliffordK

I didn't see intent.
He was just so intoxicated that he didn't know up from down.

The day after he had to ask what happened.

Prosecuting intent or premeditation would be difficult.

CB HI

The intent occurred when he took a hand full of pills, shoved them in his mouth and then turn the key on his truck.

bobwysiwyg

I agree. Not recognizing the earlier, primary act of intent is what continues to get drunk drivers lighter than justified punishment.

jefnvk

I'm all for keeping people out of prison on a first accident and giving them one chance. Once they have proven themselves a continued danger to society, I'm all for tossing them in. Prison should be for keeping people that have proven they cannot safely interact with the rest of society away from society, not for punishing every last transgression that occurs.

As Michigan does not have the death penalty, I think you'll find that a bit difficult. That said, charges are 2nd degree murder, meaning life is a very likely outcome. I don't disagree with the charge, I'd rather him get life (or at least decades) for that than the prosecutors stretching to prove it was intentional and him getting off on the charge.

JoeyBike

Perhaps we need a new category in the law for people who willingly drug themselves and operate machinery without concern. I wonder how many times in his life has he done this? I bet somewhere between 100 and 1000 times. There is your "intent" if you can prove that. He kept trying to kill someone, by putting everyone at risk repeatedly, until he finally succeeded.

How 'bout that?

jefnvk

We already have that in Michigan. It is a 15-20 year felony.

The prosecutors decided to go above and beyond that.

cb400bill

Pickett ruled competent to face trial in bike deaths

KALAMAZOO – The Battle Creek man charged with killing five bicyclists and injuring four others in Kalamazoo County has been ruled competent to stand trial.

But Charles Pickett Jr. described to a psychologist last week feelings of hopelessness and worthlessness and said he does not remember anything about the June 7 crash north of Kalamazoo.

Pickett, 50, appeared Wednesday morning in Kalamazoo County District Court before Judge Robert Kropf, according to Carrie Klein, Kalamazoo County chief assistant prosecutor.

The judge determined Pickett was competent based on an evaluation at the Center for Forensic Psychiatry in Saline.

CliffordK

Sober him up, and he's likely "competent", and capable of understanding what he did.

No doubt the defense will argue that he wasn't in charge of his faculties at the time of the incident. Whether that will hold water with the court and judge will be another story.

genec

Then the last place he should have been was "operating heavy machinery..."

Sorry, no defense.

canklecat

Many folks experience the problems described in that medical evaluation about Pickett. They get help. They don't drug themselves up to the point of oblivion and go for a death ride.

And they don't post dozens of anti-social warning indicators on social media indicating they're a bomb looking for a place to explode.

I won't take those warning signs lightly anymore. I saw a similar Facebook page by a Texas man who basically told cyclists to get the hell off his road and they won't get run over. And this was in response to a story about another road rager assaulting cyclists. Sames types of anti-social posts implying or outright threatening aggression.

CliffordK

Either fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on what side of the fence one is on, people can say or write just about anything here in the USA, up until the point where they actually act on their words, or incite others to do violence.

I couldn't imagine a more miserable job than following up on alleged hate speech on Facebook.

Facebook, however, does have a policy against Hate Speech, but also allows humor written in poor taste. So, while somewhat ambiguous, that would be one way to get rid of the public persona of the Pickets of the world. However, that wouldn't necessarily change their personality.

rekmeyata

You don't see intent? His intentions were to go out and get drunk and drive, that's all the intent that should matter. no one forced him to get drunk, he did it himself. That's like saying I take a gun and start firing it into a crowd of people, then say I didn't intend to kill anyone just freak them out.

KD5NRH

Simple solution; apply the culpable mental state under which they got intoxicated to the resultant crime.

Not culpable: somebody spiked their drink and the effects weren't apparent prior to the act in question
Reckless: drank something they weren't familiar with, or took a med they legitimately weren't aware (and wouldn't be aware from reading the label) would cause impairment - obviously, there should be some liability with the manufacturer for the label here
Criminally negligent: see above, but felt tipsy or had other indications of a problem before the criminal act
Knowing: pretty obvious here
Intentional: same - note that for many crimes, knowing and intentional are equivalent, or at least pretty similar in penalty category.

Hitting other things or running off the road and continuing to drive, under this system, would be prima facie evidence of intent.

rekmeyata

All modern day medicines are clearly marked that if you take ABC meds that you should not drink alcohol or operate heavy machinery or drive, its not the fault of the manufacture that the prescription taker is too stupid to read or ask the pharmacist what the side effects are. This nonsense about blaming the manufacture for everything has got to stop, and the blame needs to be put squarely on the user because they are the ones responsible for not adhering to the instructions given either in written form and or verbal form. In fact all pharmacies I've been to where a med was given to either myself or my wife, any such meds that have an effect on the ability to drive or has adverse effects with alcohol was not only written on the bottle and on the instructions but the pharmacist also relayed that information verbally to us.

KD5NRH

If it's a common side effect, yes, but I've had some meds where dizziness, disorientation, etc. was uncommon or rare, and it was only mentioned far down in the fine print.

rekmeyata

If the meds don't say not to drive and or operate heavy machinery or drink then you're good to go...but of course a person needs to use common sense, which in today's world people aren't required to have common sense, but if you feel dizzy, disorientated, etc then why would a person with common sense take a risk in driving or whatever knowing they're like that? Ok, in those cases, since the meds don't state not to do certain things yet it has an adverse affect then that person should not be held accountable but rather the company that made the meds without proper warnings. I've taken meds that said not to drive etc and those meds did nothing to me to make me feel like I couldn't drive, though I didn't because it said not to.

Common sense should tell a person not to drive a car if you've been drinking (include drugs in this) more than what is legally acceptable, and if you do and you kill someone off to jail you go for an extended period of time like for life. But this nonsense of either doing nothing other than going to AAA meetings after killing someone or seriously injuring someone while intoxicated and driving needs to stop, until laws get tough enough to where it will scare a person into not driving while intoxicated this isn't going to prevent the majority of current intoxicated drivers from not driving. Even with a tough life sentence you'll still have those that think they can get away with it, but should reduce the number of fatalities caused by an intoxicated driver by 50%...not sure of course if that 50% would be higher or lower but that's what I would think would happen, a lot of people who want to go out and party and a good time have good jobs and families, those are the ones that most would think twice about ruining all of that.

cb400bill

Hey guys! This thread is about news updates about the tragic events that happened in Kalamazoo. Please start another thread to discuss other topics.

Len S

Always try to stay alert but not much you can do if vehicle driver is high and out of control.

Pickup driver charged in 5 cyclist deaths ?drugged up?

JoeyBike

This guy was not the last one out there folks. Act accordingly.
.
.
.

Milton Keynes

The thing which is irritating is that his girlfriend watched him swallow a handful of pills before driving off, and she didn't call the police to keep an eye out for him. That possibly could have saved some lives.

JoeyBike

Not her's.
.
.
.

jefnvk

None of us have any idea what their relationship was. Maybe she was frightened what he'd do to her if she called the cops on him.

In any case, the cops had multiple calls about him with substantial time before the crash. She just would have been one more.