"The car turned from a blind corner and hit riders who had stopped in a traffic lane to wait for others to catch up, said Sgt. David Krumer, the LAPD's bicycle liaison."

To me it sounds like she slowed slowed down and passed the main group safely and sped up to re enter the lane, as she would do in a normal passing situation. She may still have been looking behind the car at the main group as she passed to make sure she did not hit anyone as she re entered the lane. A group of faster riders was lingering at the end of a blind curve. She was more concerned about the riders she passed than the riders in front of her, which she could not see.

I personally think the accident is explainable with out resort to claiming drunk driving, cell phone use, or even poor driving skills. The slowing down and speeding up likely happened as was described as it is correct passing technique. She probably immediately called 911 giving some the impression she was using a cell phone before the accident occurred. While drunk driving is possible it does not appear she was so impaired that it could be detected without a blood test.

Possible lessons:
Keep the group together. Visibility, when stopped on a roadway look back and ask yourself, are you visible? If the riders were going to wait in that location they should have attempted to exit the roadway onto the shoulder or sidewalk.

What's that got to do with anything? If someone drives their car into the back of my car because I did something silly I may get injured. If someone drives their car into the back of my bike because I did something silly I am more likely to be seriously injured.

With respect your argument makes no more sense than arguing that a teenage girl should be fine to walk down darkened alleys late at night because Mike Tyson did it several times without any bother.

here's a link to a video recreation of this collision, which seems to show the motor vehicle operator had ample time and space to avoid cyclists -

http://www.bikesidela.org/line-of-si...-curve-theory/

This page is linked to by the page seeker333 just gave --

http://www.bikesidela.org/update-vid...lame-cyclists/

... she blew a 0.08 at the scene and 0.07 at the station, and LAPD seems to be blaming the riders mostly for the incident.

How much time elapsed between the time that she hit the cyclists and the police showed up? What was her BAC at the time of the crash?

I don't have the first answer, and nobody has the second answer -- she wasn't measured. One could guess that her BAC was higher, but it would just be an educated guess.

And breathalyzers are notoriously inaccurate. She could be less drunk, she could be more. Some states make it a crime to simply blow a 0.08 or higher, no matter what your BAC really is (even if a blood test (a good deal more accurate) shows no alcohol in your blood at all, still guilty. This is really unfair, but some states have done it.) -- I don't know if California is such a state or not.

Either way, a BAC > 0.08 is only one way to get a DWI. The other way is simply being sufficiently impaired. The fact that she's really close to that limit (or maybe she qualified, it's not clear how that's handled) and that she hit bunch of well lit cyclists on a road with plenty of room and time to avoid them (as the video clearly shows) is pretty strong evidence that she was DWI. Enough for a conviction? I don't know.

Hopefully they'll also followup on the possibly texting angle -- though while that might hurt her overall case for being at fault, it might actually help her DWI case if she can claim that she was impaired due to texting rather than due to being drunk, since any penalties for driving while texting are far less severe.

Interesting points Alex Thompson is making:

So the LAPD will not pull phone records unless their is witness testimony, but will not take all witnesses testimony :eek:?

Also its a real shame people have to do there own crime scene investigation. I guess they don't expect the LAPD to conduct a thorough one on their own :rolleyes:.

True, and true, does anyone here know how quickly the average person metabolizes alcohol? Meaning that if she was out drinking and blew a .07 at the police station what would her BAC have been an hour earlier, two hours earlier, etc.?

Yep, all one would have to do is to have rinsed their mouth out with mouthwash and they would "blow hot" on a breathalyzer test. Whereas as you said/implied actually drawing the blood and testing it would result in a much more accurate picture as it were.

Agreed, that is very powerful, and will be hard for her lawyer's to explain away.

Hopefully, but from what I've read it doesn't look as if the police aren't too interested in looking to hard at whether she was or wasn't texting at the time of the crash.

For what it's worth, the incident occurred on the border of LA and Culver City, and the two departments decided it happened in Culver City, so CCPD is investigating. CCPD has more of a reputation for bias against cyclists than LAPD, which has improved relations over the past few years.

That used to be the case with drinking and driving. I remember getting loaded at the bar and driving home in the 80s. No one really cared. Give it 10 years and cell phone use is going to be 100% prohibited nationwide while driving.

My brother in law had a drunk driving accident. Smashed in to a tree , no seat belt = dead at 25 with 4 kids left behind. Very very sad.

Well, my point about contributory negligence in the Donte Stallworth dui, I don't recall the player ever serving time for manslaughter or murder in any degree. How the player, family, legal and judiciary system handled it was rather odd. So it's not cut & dried. What news stories I read on it, the judges seemed to allude back to the fact that the pedestrian in that case had created a situation where a sober driver would've hit him. There was a million dollar payout/off to the family, that might've influenced things too. And you'd think in a social climate of dui related death like this, that it wouldn't matter the circumstances, the fact Stallworth was drunk, should've never been behind the wheel of a car and therefore not there to hit even the most negligent of pedestrians. And that makes way more sense rather than to dance around whether a sober driver would've missed the pedestrian. Let the sober driver deal with that or a cab driver, that is if Stallworth had to even be there at the same time as the pedestrian ?

And my point about contributory negligence was that it's a civil law term, not a criminal law term. It has *nothing* to do with him serving time -- that's a criminal matter.

The driver is currently dealing with criminal law. Contributory negligence is not an issue. Soon the civil lawsuits will appear, and contributory negligence is almost certainly going to be brought up -- but that hasn't happened yet.

"Contributory negligence" is not going to keep her out of jail or even reduce her fine. It might save her some money in the upcoming lawsuits, however.

Drunk + Cell Phone = Mandatory Prison Cell Time. It's really simple to figure out guilt if the justice system removes their bias from the equation. It's become quite frustrating to live in an anti-biking society where the life and health of a bicyclist is of less value than the life of a car driver. What will it take to change this mindset?

Agreed,and it shouldn't matter if said cell phone usage is via a handset held up to their ear or if it is some sort of handsfree kit such as a bluetooth enabled headset, or if the sound is re-routed through their car's sound system.

Sadly, not only myself but I think the vast majority of others here do not know the answer to your last question.

Visibility is HIGHER in the dark. If you haven't found bright enough lights, you haven't looked in the last 2 or 3 years. I can put lights on my bike that are brighter than car head and taillights for < $200.

I am WAY more visible at night than in the daytime.

IMO drunk + driving = mandatory prison cell time. There's zero excuse. You drink and drive, you just signed a statement saying that you really don't care whether you kill people or not, your own personal enjoyment is more important than other people's lives. Maybe some prison time will help repair that opinion.

Update:

http://www.bikesidela.org/culver-cit...-justice-ride/

Here's a bunch of idiots who think that the drunk driver is a hero:

http://www.yellowbullet.com/forum/sh...d.php?t=379540

i'm inclined to start a charity, to have them sterilized. with a rusty fork.

Wow. The driver needs to be charged with Felony DUI, but that's up for endless debate. :(

I better not read that thread. That thread sends anger down through my spine. It's like a ghetto town of criminals who loves to smash cyclists down to bits. :D *nods "no freaking way"*

But man, that's just sad. :(

It's amazing the kind of unstable people they'll give a license to these days. :(

Most of those comments stuck me as coming from your "typical gearhead" who has spent too much time inhaling the exhaust from their "muscle cars." There does however appear to be a few clearer heads over there.

I did find it interesting though that the admin has locked reg, maybe they're afraid of the backlash that some of their members will create.

Yes, it is. From reading those posts I'd have to say that a lot of the members over there are using their cars to overcome a certain shortcoming. ;)

Some of them are entertaining. In post #18 of that thread:

(bolding done my me)

In post #33 of that thread, that same poster posts a picture of that road. See any sidewalks?

"There is no room to swerve into the next lane." ???

If you're paying attention you shouldn't need to "swerve" ever. You should see traffic slowing down and find a place to change lanes. It's amazing how people don't know how to drive.

Yes, this is brilliant. The bars close at 2am... let's all get out in the street around that time. Those of us who don't drink when we're out have taken to leaving the bars a half hour before the state-mandated closing time of 2am. Everyone with a proper DD is dragged out by their DD, so all the guys passing you at 1:30? Sober college kids trying to get the hell away from the wave of drunk drivers about to run you down.

By the way, in Germany this woman might be charged for manslaughter. She certainly won't get her license back, ever. DUI is a WTF? Germany also mandates only hands-free headsets in cars; no chattering on your cell phone, both hands on the wheel. Your entire physical concern is the handling of that car, not the management of a little plastic brick you want to hold up to your cheek with one hand.