No skid marks... doesn't that say it all.

"They said she slowed down then sped up and slammed into the group"

This is typical behavior of a driver who uses cell phone: they slow down to answer phone or make a call or text, during which time they did not know what's happening around. When finished with the call, thinking they had slowed down, they immediately speed up regardless the current situation. If you happen to be in front of their car, good luck to you.

The same when a driver bent over to retrieve something (cell phone, drink...) from the car floor (I remember an accident discussed some time ago somewhere on this forum).

^

Makes sense...

My biggest problem is my headlight. I need something brighter that isn't ostentatious in size.

The hole is in the reflective material.

Perhaps, but these aren't exactly reliable, un-involved witnesses. And to actually convict her of murder would require convincing a jury of this "intent" beyond a reasonable doubt.

GriddleCakes is right -- short of text talking about her intentionally hitting the cyclists, she will not be charged with murder. And if she was, that would simply mean that she wouldn't be convicted.

A lot of us expect nothing more than the obvious DUI charge. The question though if she will be charged with a felony DUI:

Same here, though from 1:30 to about 3:00 AM I would avoid. And I would avoid places that are bar heavy at night.

But in L.A. many streets that seem like a shooting gallery are rather nice after dark.

Dusk is far worse that either day or night, often the worst of both and more.

There is one hazard I've encountered afer dark that is really rare in the daytime.... Deer! Though I did have one close call in hte afternoon. This is inside the city limits of Los Angeles.

You'd have to figure with that many bikes, that many lights, it had to appear as a wall of white and red lights. The Yahoo story has more information, the woman turned a blind curve and hit pedestrians standing in the road waiting for other cyclists. Yeah, I know they are cyclists, but I wouldn't consider anyone standing in the road with a bike a cyclist at that particular moment, especially considering that they weren't waiting for a light to change and actually commuting. Like the 2nd post indicates, so many ways to have avoided this. This is contributory from my perspective & viewpoint. Do your ride, then go home. I don't know what any cyclist would expect to encounter at 1:50 AM ?

This incident is exactly one of the reasons I don't ride CM's or bar hopping rides. I like my chances better in a smaller group of 2-3 riders or even alone. Just me, but the one's that probably had no problems that night, weren't standing in the road. They probably were on the sidewalk ?

I used to quite enjoy riding at night... and truth be told, back in the day, I did so without lights... the lights then were feeble and flaky things... tiny lamps powered by leaky C cells and held by crappy plastic mounts.

I had some home made systems for commuting, (not much more than flashy strobes and "see me" lights) but the night rides I enjoyed the most were on warm summer evenings at around 9:00 to 11:00 PM. Cars were easy to avoid as they were noisy and had these bright beams of light emitting from them... a lone cyclist could easily detect and avoid those behemoths.

I liked to use back streets and did not stay out past 11:00... bar flies tended to emerge at midnight and beyond.

The warm nights were still cooler than my unairconditioned apartment... so the rides were something of an escape. That was then.

These days, with modern batteries and lighting... when I do go out, I look like the alien mothership.

There are too many blinding red blinkies to count these days-- I had to look around for one that wouldn't blind riders behind me. For the front, there are a lot of LEDs that are starting to rival car headlights. Magicshine are wicked bright for about $100. Even before the really bright lights, my SO and I were riding side by side out the gate at work 8 or so years ago (with halogen nightriders) and the guard mistook us for a car. And a group of riders at the side of the road with blinkies and few headlights? that's hard to not notice.

I think the gal DID see them. I think what you'll find is she turned a corner, saw a wall of red bicycle lights, took her foot off the gas and then accidentally STOMPED on the gas really hard while trying to hit the brake instead. This sort of thing happens ALL THE TIME. If you remember, there was a teenager that jumped a curb and killed a young boy recently that made the same mistake. It may have been exacerbated by the fact that she was either distracted or drunk but I don't know that I think it was done intentionally.

According to what I'd read he said that it had appeared that some had dismounted and were talking with friends. In that case, yes, I'd say that they were pedestrians. But if one is stopped at an intersection for a stop sign/light or to check their map, or what have you than no they are not a pedestrian.

But using his logic than I guess that motorists who stop and do any of the above are than also "pedestrians."

I agree, and given that another member posted that this is a multi-laned road she had no excuse for not going around them.

My quartz halogen isn't that big. Actually the actual headlight is smaller than the battery itself.

In that case, yeah it's time to replace the vest.

I agree with this theory and if that's the case I really don't see how the cyclists actions aren't viewed at least as contributory negligence. Standing in the road on a blind curve, well, they oughta know better.

Is something wrong with the article?

No, it does not.

Cars with ABS brakes (i.e. most of them now) leave faint or no skid marks at all if the system is working properly. And maximum braking means no skid marks, so skilled drivers don't leave them even without ABS brakes.

I'm not saying that this person was a skilled driver (unlikely -- she hit a bunch of cyclists, and being drunk certainly doesn't help) or even that she used the brakes at all. I'm just saying that the lack of skid marks by itself doesn't tell it all. By itself, it barely tells anything.

A tail light on a bike will get the attention of a sober driver, but a drunk driver will actually be drawn toward the light. Police cars and tow trucks that are pulled over to the side of the road with all their lights flashing are many times plowed into by drunk drivers. I guess you really cant win. :(

She jumped the curb from what I've heard the police report said -- so at least some of the injured were probably on the sidewalk.

Besides, "contributory negligence" is an issue in civil cases, not criminal cases. There will probably be some civil cases later, but for now she's dealing with the criminal charges.

As for "ought to know better", really, that applies to all cyclists who dare to ride on the road with cars.

Not drawn to the light exactly, and it's not clear how strong this effect is. There's more on it here.

In any event, I'd say being brightly lit up and large is a large win over being dark and small, even when the effects of the "moth effect" on a drunk (it is believed to affect drunks more) are included.

Interesting site. This article is also highly relevant to nighttime visibility issues.

IMO the worst time of day to be on the road in any vehicle or on foot are those early mornings or late afternoons when the sun glare in one direction or another blots out just about everything.

we need tougher DUI punishments in this country. Minimum of 2 years suspended license, $5000.00 to get license reinstated and a good 160 hours of community service for a first offense. Mandatory.

Yes, no skid marks certainly says a lot.

Every ABS equipped car I've driven would allow the driver to override the ABS and lock the brakes with a hard enough push on the pedal. Even with a perfect ABS system, swerving hard will leave skid marks.