Van that killed bicyclist in Pittsfield Township was over the fog line, witnesses testify
Both passenger side wheels of a van that struck and killed a bicyclist in Pittsfield Township in July were over the fog line right before impact, two witnesses testified in court today.
A third witness testified 20-year-old Nicholas Wahl, who is charged with negligent homicide in the death, stood near the cyclist’s body, distraught with his head in his hands.
When witness Donna Samuelson determined the cyclist, 45-year-old Tim Pincikowski, had no pulse and wasn’t breathing, she attempted to comfort Wahl, she said.
She told him it would be OK, but Wahl said it wouldn’t because of a cut on the back of Pincikowski’s neck, Samuelson testified.
Wahl also told her, “I took my eyes off the road for just a moment,” Samuelson said.
Samuelson testified today in 14A District Court during a preliminary hearing to decide whether there is probable cause to proceed with the case. The case was adjourned after the three witnesses testified and will continue Oct. 23.
Wahl, a Grand Valley State University student with no criminal record, faces up to two years in prison if convicted on the high-court misdemeanor charge.
He is accused in the death of Pincikowski, a married father of two from Saline who worked as a project manager for BASF in Wyandotte. Pincikowski died of a neck fracture.
Sally Lattuca testified she was traveling south on Maple Road at about 5 p.m. July 28 when she saw a bicycle traveling north.
She said it was near the fog line, which is the white line on the right side of the road. A vehicle was trailing the cyclist, and half the vehicle was over the line, Lattuca testified.
“When I first saw it, I thought, 'Could this be a pace car?'” she said. “Then I thought, 'This guy’s gonna die.'”
Out of her peripheral vision and driver’s side mirror, she saw the cyclist fly into the car’s windshield, she said.
She didn’t hear tires squealing or see the vehicle make any moves before impact, she testified. Lattuca estimated both of the vehicle’s passenger side wheels were over the fog line for between four and five seconds.
Under cross-examination by Wahl’s attorney, Joe Simon, Lattuca acknowledged the cyclist was within 3 inches of the fog line, but she didn’t know on which side.
She couldn’t specify whether Pincikowski was on the road or in the shoulder. Lattuca also acknowledged she didn’t know whether the driver made any last second maneuvers because she didn’t see the front of the car hit the bicycle.
Washtenaw County Assistant Prosecutor Anthony Kendrick asked her, “How certain are you that that SUV was across that fog line?”
“Quite certain,” she said.
Benjamin Brand testified he was traveling south on the road and “saw the entire thing happen.”
A bicyclist was traveling north on the side of the road or on the fog line and was trailed by a dark green van, he said. The van was straddling the line, with both passenger wheels over it, he said.
The van hit the cyclist, he flew up onto the hood, struck the windshield and was thrown, Brand testified.
Brand also didn't hear any tires squealing. When Brand discovered Pincikowski wasn’t breathing, he started to flag down cars. He said he saw Wahl standing there.
“He had his head in his hands and he had a conversation with one of the other witnesses,” he said.
Under cross-examination, Brand said he couldn’t pinpoint the bicyclist’s position.
“I know that he was on the side of the road near the fog line,” he said. “I couldn’t say exactly where he (was).”
Brand estimated the van was traveling about 50 miles per hour, and Lattuca said none of the cars on the road appeared to be traveling at an excessive speed.
Judge J. Cedric Simpson lifted some restrictions on Wahl during the hearing, including mandatory alcohol and drug screening.
But he ordered that Wahl not drive, which Wahl has been doing anyway voluntarily, Simon said.
Wahl's parents and other supporters were at the hearing.
Pittsfield Officer Patrick Gray is expected to testify next week.
Lee Higgins covers crime and courts for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at leehiggins@annarbor.com or 734-623-2527.
Comments
discgolfgeek
Fri, Oct 23, 2009 : 3:14 p.m.
Bicyclists definitely have the right of way, no ifs, and, or buts. But you won't see me riding my bike on a busy road or highway. Bicyclists are basically defenseless riding the same direction; mirror or no mirror, a car could swerve at any time. Not being able to accelerate at the speed of an automobile is a huge disadvantage in accident avoidance. And the comments about texting and cell phone use while driving are right on target -- the human mind is not good at multitasking. It seems like every time I see someone driving erratically or not flowing well with traffic, when I finally get a look, a cellphone is involved. Where's a bullhorn when you need one? Look around while stopped at a traffic light -- it's amazing how people are yakking away on their cellphone.
zeeba
Fri, Oct 23, 2009 : 10:34 a.m.
Slug - Sorry, but the cop who gave you a free pass for hitting a cyclist with your motorcycle should have been suspended or lost his job. Doesn't matter if the cyclist came out of the so-called "bike lane" (read shoulder) - he or she still has the right of way, same as any other vehicle in front of you.
ElleFordA2
Fri, Oct 23, 2009 : 7:39 a.m.
It's these kinds of stories that made us decide for my husband NOT to ride his bike to work a few miles down Washtenaw. We had a decision to make. Take his life into fate's hands every day on the bike (in order to be green and avoid A2 's extensive parking pass fees?) My vote was no bike. It's crazy out there!! Many unseasoned young drivers, skinny car lanes that barely fit Ann Arbor's penchant for the SUV--some of which go over my lane line when I'm next to them. It's a shame as the bike is excellent exercise, but his life is worth more to me than it is to anyone in the cars on the road. Our decision? We now use a combo of bus and me driving him. It's too scary and until "teleportation" is invented we will always have car, bus, bike and airplane accidents. We just have to decide what we are willing to chance and take our chances in the mode we decide. Good luck to us all!
Bumpy
Fri, Oct 23, 2009 : 7:03 a.m.
Consider if Mr. Wahl had drifted to the left instead and the fatality had been a motorist in the oncoming lane. Does that mean that we should only have one way roads? That the other motorist should be blamed because he was in Mr. Wahl's way? If the victim had only worn a crash helmet, he would've lived (Note that if the cyclist were helmetless, the helmet wouldve saved his life - but thats another issue) The cyclist and Mr. Wahl are victims of a tragic accident. Period. The End. I don't think Mr. Wahl did it on purpose or hates bicyclists. I don't think the cyclist was being selfish or taking excessive risks. There are several more significant risk factors here. Mr. Wahl is a young, male driver. They were on a fast two lane highway. They were in heavy traffic. Not sure about visibility. Was it dusk? Was it raining? By relying so heavily on motor vehicles, we all risk heart disease and high speed crashes, much more prevalent causes of premature death than getting hit by a car while riding a bicycle. Whenever someone is rear-ended, it is considered the rear-enders fault. Bicycling for transportation is safe, convenient and practical. The nature of this discussion just demonstrates how warped our attitudes are. While it is true that the roads are designed for motor vehicles, nonetheless cyclists have a legal right to use them, on either side of the fog line. Specially marked Car Lanes are more apt. Its the auto that needs the extra space to pass.
wmgunders
Fri, Oct 23, 2009 : 5:22 a.m.
Any death is a tragedy, however, ruining a young man's life because of an accident is a tragedy, too. My husband rides his bike to and from work every day and if you see him (and you will)--he is lit up like a Christmas tree! He wears bright colors and has numerous flashing and blinking lights all over his bike! The lights are illuminated even during the day! Cyclists also have a responsibility to be seen. I remember the late afternoon that this accident happened--it was very overcast and a torrential downpour was about to occur... flashing lights on a bike certainly could have helped. The death of a father and husband is a great tragedy, but sending a young man to jail won't bring the cyclist back.
jmac
Wed, Oct 21, 2009 : 9:57 a.m.
Cars and bikes share the road - with the emphasis on 'share'. Both types of vehicles have a right to use the same roadway, at the same time. A car driving behind a bicyclist has to slow down (usually) and drive slower than the posted speed limit (usually) until it is in a position to safely (as in not causing head-on crashes with cars in oncoming traffic) pass the bicyclist. I don't understand why car drives get so worked up over this. Slowing down for a few seconds and paying attention to the road for an opportunity to pass a bicyclist is an inconvenience, similar to driving slow behind a slow car. Yes, it is irritating if you're in a hurry as many of us are all the time, but that's it - irritating, inconvenient, annoying. I worry every day getting into my car about getting into some kind of accident; even with the 2 tons of metal, seatbelts and airbags, we are only made of flesh and blood and that can go south in a heartbeat. So give the bicyclists a break, they don't have any protective gear except a helmet to keep them out of harms way - better your car is not the potential 'harm' they have to deal with on the road!
Mumbambu, Esq.
Mon, Oct 19, 2009 : 3:18 p.m.
Dennis- The issue is not fault vs. risk its fault vs. intent. If someone falls asleep at the wheel, drifts to the other lane and hits and kills the driver of an on coming car the fact that they didn't intend to kill the person doesn't remove them from fault. To echo the comment from Spanish earlier. If that did happen, if all circumstance were the same only it was drifting into oncoming traffic where the opposing driver of a vehicle was hit and killed, would that opposing driver also be responsible for getting hit?
KJMClark
Mon, Oct 19, 2009 : 9:57 a.m.
Legally, a cyclist is not supposed to use the shoulder. They should be as close to the fogline, on the left-hand side of it, as practicable. If there is a bike lane, not just a paved shoulder, they can use the bike lane, and motorists have to stay out of it. I know a lot of people think that if there's a paved shoulder, cyclists are supposed to use it, but the Michigan Supreme Court has made it clear in some recent rulings that paved shoulders are not part of the "roadway". Michigan law says that cyclists "shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway". And MRM, I've never said you should keep your eyes on the road every single second. But no one practicing what we all learned in driver's-ed - scan the roadway 12 seconds ahead, do a quick check every four seconds or so of your speed and rear-view mirrors, slow down if you're approaching a potential problem ahead - could have had this happen to them, short of a mechanical failure. I completely disagree that this could have happened to anyone. If you think this could have happened to you, you should review page 83 of the current Michigan "What Every Driver Must Know" (http://www.michigan.gov/documents/wedmk_16312_7.pdf). The beginning of Chapter 8 says: "Concentrate on your driving. A momentary distraction can lead to a crash. Do not allow tasks, such as tuning the radio, searching for a compact disk, eating, or talking on the cell phone, pull your attention from the road.", and "Recognize that you share the road with others whether they are walking, bicycling, or driving." If you read my comments from the prior stories on this topic, you'll see that I understand that this is a tragedy for the driver as well, and while I hope that justice is done, I also hope that this doesn't permanently damage this young man's life, and that we all learn the lesson to pay attention to the road.
mrm0227
Sun, Oct 18, 2009 : 11:50 p.m.
KJMClark really? If you want to be sarcastic go ahead, ignorance isn't going to get you anywhere. You're saying that since the law says to be a safe driver, that it means that you don't take your eyes off the road EVER? so when you look down for a split second to check you speed so you don't go over the speed limit doesn't count. And when you look into any of your mirrors to check whats going on behind you doesn't count either. Seems to me like drivers training courses tell you that you should check your mirrors very frequently. Everyone is ragging on a situation that they know nothing about. A situation that at any moment could be any of us. You weren't there, you don't know what he was doing, you don't know exactly how close to the line the biker was, if there were ppl coming in the other lane. I know this boy, he is someone who has never done anything bad in his entire life, a responsible person and something awful has happened, to both parties. So why not stop complaining, put aside your judgmental attitudes and realize that a tragedy has happened to two different families.
pseudo
Sun, Oct 18, 2009 : 10:26 p.m.
I just had the most interesting conversation with a friend who lives in another state - she was reading these comments and was "shocked" at the level of ignorance displayed by those who claim to be drivers and yet don't know the law. She asked if Michigan had a driver's education system. I can't claim that the system in place is actually "educational".
Moose
Sun, Oct 18, 2009 : 9:27 p.m.
Overtaxed drivers license should be revoked because he doesn't know much about Michigan motor vehicle law or the rules of the road for safe driving and cycling.
nonyo
Sun, Oct 18, 2009 : 8:15 p.m.
Overtaxed, Almost everything you cited was what is the correct, legal way to ride a bike. Use the left turn lane, where one is available, and use a crosswalk light to safely cross an intersection, if appropriate. Did you know a 'smart' light won't change for a cyclist unless he presses a crosswalk button? Do you think a child of say, eight years old, should have to have a permit to ride a bike? If you live to to your nickname, of 'overtaxed', wouldn't a tax on cyclists, who already pay every tax you pay, be considered 'overtaxed'? Drive safely, be aware of your surroundings, and obey the law. It's that simple, and for everyone's well being.,P> I think a mandatory test of every driver may be in order, following the reasoning of some of the posers here, with special emphasis on yielding to slower traffic. BTW, According to the marks on the road put down by the police department during their investigation, the deceased was in the line of sight of the driver for fully 8 seconds before he was run down. I would think that would constitute negligence on the part of the driver, I feel for him, and am fairly sure he didn't mean to murder someone, but he did, and the law is clear. Perhaps we should all slow down when there is an obstacle ahead, how much time does it take out of our lives to be a safe driver? I am a retired professional driver, and would like to point out 'Smiths Rules of Driving': http://wiki.answers.com/Q/5_smith_rules_of_driving Aim high in steering Keep your eyes moving Get the big picture Make sure you are seen Leave yourself an out It's your future as well as mine. Driving is a privilege, not a right. You are in a 3000lb+ machine, that can maim and kill if not properly controlled.
OverTaxed
Sun, Oct 18, 2009 : 7:18 p.m.
I think cyclists need to get a permit to ride on the road. I do not know who was at fault in this case, but most cyclists I have seen are totally irresponsible. They act like a car or cycle at will, whichever speeds them along. They ride in the center of the streets and use the left turn lane in traffic. They cut car drivers off. They ride in traffic then use the crosswalk signs to cross streets. They will get hurt in town more often if someone doesn't put a stop to them. For safety, they should be restricted.
KJMClark
Sun, Oct 18, 2009 : 9:23 a.m.
The question here is whether the clear negligence of the motorist rose to the level of a form of criminal negligence. That's for the jury to decide. How long the motorist wasn't paying enough attention to the road isn't really relevant, and unless people here were at the scene, there's no reason to believe that the witnesses are mistaken. Some people have odd ideas about "common sense". The version of common sense I grew up with was that no matter who's on the road, as the driver of a car/truck, you are responsible to avoid endangering them. If there's a pedestrian, a cyclist, a tractor, a postal vehicle, a firefighter, a construction worker, etc, you are responsible for slowing down and passing them at a safe distance. It's not your business to decide who should or shouldn't be there. It's your job to safely avoid them. The Michigan Supreme Court reached the same conclusion decades ago. A truck driver who killed two kids on a bike tried to claim that since he was passing four feet over from them, he wasn't negligent when they lost control trying to get over because a truck was coming up behind them. The Supreme Court said he could be found negligent, because it was his responsibility to pass at a speed and distance that allowed him to avoid a crash. Common sense says you obey the law, the Supreme Court has the final say, it's not your business to decide who belongs on public roads, and if you don't want your driving privilege revoked, you do your best to be safe.
Phillip Farber
Sat, Oct 17, 2009 : 5:07 p.m.
It seems just about everything that can be said on this topic has been said. However, addressing those of you who see cyclists as "in the way": Cyclists are not blocking traffic, are ARE traffic.
thinking
Sat, Oct 17, 2009 : 12:10 p.m.
I am interested to know what the law enforcement testimony will reveal next week. As @engineer suggests, eyewitness accounts - often sincere - are not always reliable, as people cope with shock and disbelief. The likelihood this driver traveled more than the entire length of a football field while over the fog line (50 mph = 88 ft./second x 5 seconds = 440 feet)seems implausible. Maybe its one second that seemed like an eternity... Awake at the wheel; no drugs or alcohol involved; no other passengers in the vehicle; no cell phone or texting, either (because you KNOW that would have been reported!) So I'm interested to know what law enforcement's investigation yielded. Must be something there - or not there - that investigators did not originally recommend for charges, as is their procedure. Nor did the prosecutor originally pursue charges. Nor did annarbor.com report on it...
Idripdry
Sat, Oct 17, 2009 : 11:12 a.m.
The cyclist was traveling up a long steady grade and was going maybe 15 mph tops. The road surface was good and the weather was not an issue. The driver of the car should have been able to easily see the cyclist up ahead for about one mile but maybe he was traveling too close to a vehicle in front or was distracted with some activity like texting. The posts in this tread are making assumptions or ignoreing the facts. I ride this route all the time, no way this happens unless the driver of the car totally blows it. Regarding punishment if proven guilty. Society likes to look the other way or choose to be compassinate for a variety of odd ball reasons. That just breeds chaois and more social difficlties. Doing the right thing should be more black or white." spare the rod spoil the child" it doesn't get more difficul to understand then that.
newsboy
Sat, Oct 17, 2009 : 8:54 a.m.
I agree that this is not the forum for the cyclists and drivers to be having this argument. While the facts are interesting, they are hurtful to those that are involved in this situation. Isn't there a blog elsewhere that this discussion can take place?
a2cents
Sat, Oct 17, 2009 : 7:25 a.m.
Aside: "tight shorts" exist because a 10 mile ride requires 8500 pedal revolutions (75"/rev gear) and the seams in regular clothing will chafe inner thighs and result in discomfort and/or infections... not to mention the strategic padding they provide to help absorb the punishment of pavement irregularities. The riders you see on the road are routinely traveling 15, 25, 50... 100+ miles/day.
DennisP
Sat, Oct 17, 2009 : 3 a.m.
I only have some clarifications here for comments made to my postings. First, many here can't seem to distinguish fault from risk. The driver of the car was legally at fault. This was determined by a jury and there's no question about it or the law. The law is correct and the result was just. I don't have a problem with that. However, so many who have posted here are so blinded by a passion for a hobby that they can't recognize that law doesn't replace common sense. The closer you are to a large, fast-moving piece of steel the more you will bounce when struck. As for those who want to compare cycling risks to pedestrians--please do. That risk isn't small either. However, realize that pedestrians don't normally walk on the blacktop just inside the fog line with their backs to oncoming traffic. If there was a law that allowed that, I'd still think anyone who did it lacked common sense. We all take risks, but they should be commensurate with the benefits we get. Firefighters take great risks each day but it's how they feed their families and they'll do anything to minimize those risks. Biking on a road right next to large vehicles when you have a family who needs you because you like the fresh air and exercise seems to be an inordinate risk compared to the benefits. And, I'm entitled to that opinion. Finally, for those who criticize the ability of drivers, at least all drivers have to have some training, go through a licensing process and have to pass some sort of driver's test. Right now, all a bicyclist needs to be on the road is a Schwinn and, apparently, tight shorts to pretend they are winding along a mountain in France. In the end, you may all remain indignant about us "cagers" but you'll still be painting bikes white. Hopefully, the ghost bikes won't be for any of you.
slug
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 11:40 p.m.
""Cager" is a term coined by motorcyclists to describe those who ride protected inside of a steel cage, a car." ================================================= Good Grief. So a cyclist then is an "Exposer" since s/he is completely vulnerable, floating on a lightweight frame and tires? How is it "selfish" for me to want to avoid people riding on unstable and unprotected sticks-on-wheels when they are right next to my "cage" and a gust of wind or a side mirror could create a tragedy? I am happy to share the road when it is built to accommodate both types of transport. Since most are not yet, then they shouldn't.
Marvin Face
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 9:54 p.m.
oops. brake, not break.
Marvin Face
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 9:52 p.m.
So I'm going to agree that inattentiveness at the wheel is inexcusable.. While I ride a bike daily year-round commuting to work, I also drive. I agree that, at times, you are distracted while driving. However, it is important that you understand when it is OK to check mirrors, etc. When you see a group of kids playing on the sidewalk or are approaching a bicyclist it is NOT ok to look away. This is a time to be at your absolute most lucid.. I always think back to my high school drivers-ed instructor. To be honest, it is the one thing that I remember to this day from that class (besides those comical simulation machines). He always said, "recognize the need to cover the break".
Engineer
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 9:23 p.m.
I truly doubt the 4 to 5 second testimony as fact. Going towards each other at 50 MPH each makes for a 100 MPH differential. A long ways is covered at 100 MPH in 4 to 5 seconds. Maple road has enough rolling hills that make it nearly impossible to travel that far and see end to end of the driven stretch. As an example pick a point and drive for 9 seconds at 50 MPH which will equal the 4 to 5 at 2 x 50 and see if you truly can see all the way to where you started. I think the person testifying believes that long went by but I think it was closer to a couple of seconds. This was tragic for all but not criminal.
Moose
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 7:23 p.m.
Opinions count. They're indicators of how people feel about issues. If it's anyone's opinion that the cyclist is at fault in this case, even to split the blame in half, then it's my opinion that any reasoning that tries to spread the blame around or pin it on a cyclist who's in compliance with the law, are rationalizing and equivocating because they are completely oblivious and have little regard for anyone else other than themselves. Well, I feel sorry for the motorist. I don't think anyone wants to send him to prison or carve a letter in his forehead, but the perfect storm happened to him and he'll suffer the consequences no matter what they may be. Does anyone consider that most cyclists also drive cars? Let's imagine that the stupid cyclists are the same stupid drivers. Then the problem isn't bicyclists or motorists per se, but the individuals lack of responsibility, civility and respect for others and lack the inability to operate even the most simple of vehicles, let alone something 4000 pounds or more. While being stupid on a bicycle may be unhealthy for the cyclist, being stupid behind the wheel, even for 4-5 seconds, can result in death for not only cyclists, but anyone else on the road.
D
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 5:58 p.m.
Your logic is completely lacking mumbambu. The unfortunate souls who died on 9/11 in the Twin Towers attack had absolutely no reason to consider their building would be hit by a terrorist controlled plane. People in roadways, whether they are on bikes, walking, jogging, or even in other vehicles take a risk being on the roadway. Statistics show that the chances of being killed in an automobile accident are 1/5000, while the chances of being involved in a plane crash are 1/11 million. I would imagine the chances of dying in a building which is hit by a plane are even lower. Yes, bicyclists have the "right" to travel by roadway. That doesn't mean they should exercise that right during rush hour or on busy or dangerous roads. I have the right to smoke and drink alcohol, which I believe everybody would agree is hazardous to my health, but having the right does not make exercising that right a smart or safe thing to do. I wasn't there to see the ACCIDENT occur, so any opinion about who was at fault or whether someone should be punished is speculation. But it was an accident that this young man will have to live with forever. He didn't intentionally take this man's life and I think it's probably safe to say he will never do this again. So what exactly is the point in "throwing the book at him" as one poster commented? Punishment is meant to change/correct unacceptable behavior. This young man will have that image forever burned in his memory. I'm sure that's enough to alter his behavior.
pseudo
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 5:42 p.m.
Can someone explain to me how the position of the cyclist has anything to do with the issue? Cyclists have the right, as any other vehicle, to be in the road. So how is this important or is it simply a red herring for the jury? Second: I may be wrong about this and I am not making any kind of judgment on anyone's intentions but am I also correct that its not really an accident under the law if driver was negligent. From what I've read so far, it seems like he was over the fog line for quite some time not "just for a second". I drive this road. This would not happen to anyone at any time. You can see, you can see cyclists with lots of lead-time. What else was this man doing that he was driving over the fog line long enough to hit Tim?
nekkidfish
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 4:36 p.m.
Moose, just a few points 1:If you noticed I stated my opinion on bike lanes it's only my opinion and 2:I have been driving for 42yrs have never had a moving violation or been involved in an at-fault accident. I try my best to be a considerate and courteous driver. I try my best to accomodate bicyclists on the roads. I know there are safe,considerate cyclists out there. Unfortunately, just like drivers there are cyclists that go out of their way to disrupt traffic just because they can. In order to keep myself and the bicyclist safe I have to assume they all fall into the selfish/inconsiderate catergory just as I have to assume the drivers in the vehicles on the road with me are all drunk. However this really has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
leaguebus
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 4:20 p.m.
I ride a bike everyday, including the winter. I feel sorry for both people in this accident. Notice I said accident! If one takes his eyes off the road for 4 or 5 seconds at 50mph, he has traveled between 300 and 400 feet not looking forward. This is a whole football field at the least. At the same time, usually when I drive, I look a mile or so ahead (if it is possible), just so I can see things that will eventually have an affect on my going forward. These are things like bicyclists, pedestrians, vehicles pulled to the side of the road, junk laying in the road,small and large animals, pot holes, etc. If the driver did not see the cyclist from a mile or so back, that means he was not paying attention for longer than 4 or 5 seconds. Still, I don't think the driver should go to jail. Just be put on probation for a long period of time. That way, if something like this would happen again, there could be some form of incarceration involved. By the way, the bicyclist could easily have been going faster than 20 mph. Again, this was a tragedy to all persons involved, not to just the cyclist.
Moose
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 4 p.m.
Senior citizen? Where did you get that? ROFLMAO Cager = http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cager
Moose
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 3:57 p.m.
"Cager" is a term coined by motorcyclists to describe those who ride protected inside of a steel cage, a car. Drift left or right, cyclist or another motorist, cross the line or whatever, what difference does that make? Either way the driver is at fault for failing to use due care or worse and the victim, cyclist pedestrian or another driver, pays the price for their stupidity and negligence. Is this concept really that hard to comprehend? There is no gray area here, either one obeys the law while operating a motor vehicle or they don't and if not, they suffer the consequences of their short attention span. If there's any difference, another driver is surrounded by steel and probably has an air bag. The poor cyclist was riding a coat hanger compared to the operator inside of a two ton vehicle. People feel far too safe in their cars and think only of themselves when driving (kind of like real life huh?). Do away with air bags and seat belts and make cars dangerous like the old days. Ban any car over 3500 pounds and 100 horsepower. Make cars lighter, smaller with skinny tires, no safety glass and cheap steel. Make everyone take drivers ed and refreshed courses and show them bloody car wrecks. Then maybe we'll see a difference in how people drive.
11GOBLUE11
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 3:55 p.m.
A "cager" is a senior citizen, pronounced ka-jur.
Mumbambu, Esq.
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 3:31 p.m.
"Both men were at fault" By that logic, and that of a previous commenter who stated "The bicyclist made a mistake too, rest his soul, for not considering his family when he put himself at high risk riding on the side of the road" It's like saying the people that died in the twin towers should have thought about their families before going to work at a terrorist target.
spanish
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 3:25 p.m.
it seems many people are caught up on the driver drifting to the right, over the white line, while his attention was diverted and he killed a cyclist for which he is sorry. what if he had drifted to the left, over the double yellow, and killed another driver? would he be any more/less at fault? what is a "cager"
Moose
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 2:40 p.m.
Please tell us how the dead victim was at fault? I doubt that a judge or jury would see it that way. I know that I don't. Yeah I feel bad for the driver, but he made a decision to not use due care when drove his 4000 pound deadly weapon. All the cyclist was doing was riding his bicycle on a public roadway where bicycles are allowed. @louhi "Both men were at fault."
Louhi
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 2:28 p.m.
I agree with D. Both men were at fault. It's very unfortunate. I ride a bike, and drive a car. Personally, I'm not comfortable riding my bike on "country roads" due to the high speed limits and lack of bike lanes.It's too risky. For those of you that choose to ride on risky roads, more power to you. Again, I have to agree with both DennisP and D, that it's a risk. Those of you that do it are taking that risk.
CycloChemist
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 2:08 p.m.
All motorized vehicle drivers need to be licensed in order to operate a motorvehicle on public roads. This reflects the state's presupposition that operation of a motorvehicle is a privilege, not a right. It also reflects the greater burden of motorvehicle responsibility because these machines are heavy and capable of greater speed. Bicyclist operating their vehicles on public roadways accept the same rights and responsibilities of other vehicle operators, which includes providing due care to all other road users. Due care. It's a special term. As a driver of a car, it's something you absolutely must provide to ALL other users of the roadway. Now consider this particular tragedy. At the site of this crash, Maple southbound is an upward slope, very straight. At the time of day there was ample daylight, no rain to obscure vision. No other mitigating circumstances. This driver, to a greater extent than most drivers, did not provide due care. Speed WAS an issue, because he should not have been driving at the limit of posted speed - he should have slowed down. Distraction - clearly he was distracted, but for more than a few minutes. Lack of knowledge of the law - clearly this driver took his privilege of driving for granted; assumed that the public road was just for motorvehicles. As a cyclist I identify with the victim and share in the family's grief for the loss of a father, husband, brother and son. To the driver, I am sorry, but you broke the law and killed a man. If it were in my power I'd "throw the book at you," because you deserve it. You should not drive a motorvehicle for a very long time. You should be fined a significant amount, and you should do time in jail, followed by a very long time of public service so that you can tell others how driving is a very serious responsibility, how you need to be aware at all times of other users of the road, especially more vulnerable road users like pedestrians and bicyclists.
Moose
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 1:24 p.m.
Unbelievable. Shocking. These kind of statements below are a testament to the selfish attitude that permeates our culture. @USMA2014 "bikes should not be on the road regardless of the law. They put themselves in danger" Yeah, only if you're on the road @nekkdfish "If a cyclist chooses to ride on a road with no bike lane then the cyclist should be at fault if he gets hit." Yeah, write the cyclist a ticket as they lie bleeding (or dead) by the side of the road. @DennisP. "The bicyclist made a mistake too, rest his soul, for not considering his family when he put himself at high risk riding on the side of the road." Yeah blame the victim. Drivers licenses are far too easy and cheap to obtain as indicated by some posters replies to this thread.
g-man
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 12:51 p.m.
from jb82 - "The point is being missed here". It most certainly is. What's being missed here is that there are 2 families involved, both with life changing ramifications to deal with. The fact that the comments regarding this preliminary hearing has turned into a political banter between bikers and non-bikers is absolutely PATHETIC!. There is a time and place for political and law based topics. THIS IS NOT ONE OF THEM. Has anyone who has posted these comments thought that both families will read all this and be completely disgusted with the equal amount of ridiculous comments from both sides. A man is dead, his families life changed forever. Another man and his family have also been changed for life regardless of the outcome of the hearings. Have a little repect and stop the madness.
Dr. Thomson
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 12:09 p.m.
Ann Arbor does need to wake up and realize they are podunk when it comes to car/bicycle relations. The proof is in cities like New York and Toronto. When I feel safer riding down one of the busiest streets in a city of over 4 million then I do riding up to the store in Ann Arbor we have a problem. Bicycles are not going to go away and drivers need to realize that. At the same time I believe bicyclists do need to follow the laws of the road and respect their internal combustion counterparts. In sum both sides need to get their fair share of protection. Yes, you and I as a cyclist do have the right to the road (as do horse carriages, farm equipment, and other slow vehicles) but we also are REQUIRED to follow all of the laws that cars obey. This does mean stopping at red lights and STOP SIGNS. Yes on the other hand when we drive we do have to slow down for cyclists and this shouldn't be an issue, since no one seems to have an issue with handling encounters with other slow vehicles like farm tractors and I believe everyone with a license should be capable of using legal passing zones on two-lane roads. As for the riding on side walks, it is illegal in most places for cyclists to ride on side walks bicycle (I believe is is a $100+ ticket here in Toronto not sure if A2 has a ban on it or not). Either way it is safer for pedestrians to have bikes with off the side walks. Most importantly our police force has to fair and educated. They are the first step in mediation between cars and bikes. I used to live right down the street from where this accident happened and I noticed the Pittsfield Township PD actually did a fair job of mediation and law enforcement but Ann Arbor PD is one of the worst when it comes to mediating bicycle/car disagreements. They honestly seem to looking for the easiest way to pass their shifts and problems onto someone else. Personally, despite my heavy bicycle leanings, I don't think Wahl "should be made an example of". He made a mistake and from the testimony it sounds like it was a negligent mistake, one that will change his life. But his mistake is one he admits to making. Our system is designed around rehabilitation not pure punishment hence he should be tried for what he was charged not for some reason of an example.
jb82
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 11:35 a.m.
The point is being missed here. Ann Arbor has more bad drivers than any other community in the United States. I stuggle on a daily basis dealing with the challenged drivers on the road. The next time I merge on to 23 and the car ahead is merging at 40mph, I'm gonna lose my mind. The north side of Ann Arbor is like the Wild West on the roads. Has anyone tried to navigate through Plymouth Mall? Scary! Be safe people!
Idripdry
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 11:30 a.m.
I cycle in the area that this happened a lot. This route is a good surface and safer then most. People ride bikes for many reasons in my case fitness. Cycleists Ride for hours and travel many miles at avearge speeds of 20 to 25 miles an hour and as high as 35. Don't tell me I have to try and do that on a sidewalk,we need to share the road. I am amazed how many people operate their cars and text message,that needs to STOP!. In my opinion that is the likely cause of this death.
Dr_B
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 11:20 a.m.
Some of the comments posted here indicate a misunderstanding of the facts. This accident happened in broad daylight on a long, straight stretch of road with perfect visibility. Had the driver been paying attention at all, he could have seen the cyclist the better part of a mile up the road. That should have given him plenty of time to react to the situation. It's not like the cyclist darted in front of the vehicle with no warning. This was clearly not a case of taking your eyes off the road for a split second to check the speedometer or rear view mirror. Witnesses stated that the driver had two wheels over the white line for an extended period of time. It's preposterous to apportion any blame to the victim; had he been driving a car and had to pull over to change a flat tire the result would have been the same. The fact that none of the witnesses heard squealing tires suggests that the driver made no attempt to brake; he simply was totally oblivious to his surroundings. No matter what the circumstances, it's the driver's responsibility to know what's ahead of him, and to find a way to safely pass any obstacles. No exceptions. PERIOD. Anytime you get behind the wheel of a vehicle, you have to realize that your actions have consequences. I have a teenager who is learning how to drive, and if nothing else this tragedy serves to emphasize this point to him.
Julie
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 10:38 a.m.
Nanny -- I say it because if his eyes were off the road for 4-5 seconds (!!!! Count that out -- it's so long), he was clearly utterly distracted by something. Statistics are pretty clear that cell phone use while driving accounts for the largest number of distracted driving accidents, by a huge margin. And I absolutely agree with this: "I don't understand this argument that your eyes have to be glued to the road 100% of the time to see a cyclist 100s of yards in front of you that typically can be seen waaaay in advance....We're not talking about squirrels darting across the road people..." Your eyes are not "glued" to the road. They are scanning everything all around you -- the road, other motorists, movement off to the sides, your rear-view mirrors. If you don't see a cyclist 100s of yards in front of you, come on. FOUR TO FIVE SECONDS!
notnecessary
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 9:53 a.m.
@Julie - Your quote: I have no idea what he was doing, but I must say that this tragedy should spark a law banning all cell phone use and texting while driving. If you have no idea what he was doing, then how do you reach the conclusion that there shouuld be a ban about cell phone use while driving? Take the example of a baby randomly dying at home. This is like saying "I have no clue if the baby died from being elecricuted, but because he did die (whatever the cause) we should ban open electrical outlets in all homes." No sense.
PformerPfizer
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 9:41 a.m.
a2cents is correct - I often intentionally take up a significant portion of the travel lane to ensure a car doesn't try to "sneak by" thus hitting me. It's meaningless where the bike was, he's entitled to the full lane if he wants it.
klac1977
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 9:33 a.m.
Also - I could be wrong but I thought it was gloomy and rainy that evening??
klac1977
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 9:32 a.m.
I'm really struggling with where I stand on this issue. I feel horrible for both families involved in this incident - I feel terrible for the family who lost their husband, father, son - but I also feel terrible for the man, and his family, who hit him. Those of you who are saying that it's a crime to ever take your eyes off the road for even a split second, I understand your point but you're not being honest with yourself if you believe that it's truly possible. Even the witness who testified that she saw it happen in her mirror - her eyes weren't on the road. It happens sometimes - you see someone pass you and they're swerving all over the road and you watch them in your mirror, you see a deer to the right of your car in a field on its way to the road, you watch that deer - I believe it is impossible to keep your eyes in front of you glued to the road at all times, no matter how hard one tries. I also believe that it is very difficult to share the road with a bicyclist. I find myself often times trying to figure out what to do (and I've been driving for nearly 20 years)...sometimes they're so close to the "fog-line" and I have to decide very quickly what the heck I should do - try to swerve way out and pass them and hope I don't hit someone head on or slam on my brakes and possibly get rear-ended by a car behind me. It's very difficult to slow down to the 5MPH that a bicycle is going and just ride it out until there's an opportunity to pass. I'm not trying to say I don't tolerate bicyclists but I think that there do need to be bigger bike lanes on all main roads or bicyclists should not be allowed to ride on busy roads that do not offer any more than a thin shoulder - it becomes a danger to everyone on that road and sadly the biker will often lose his or her life if they come into contact with a vehicle - and the driver of that vehicle will always have to live with that guilt over a situation that could've been and should've been avoided.
jns131
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 9:27 a.m.
It only takes a second to loose control of a car no matter how old you are. I heard a teenager just getting out school dropped her cell phone and when the driver went to reach for it? Slammed into the back end of a school bus. Talk about being lucky. That accident could have been worse. I think the prosecutors are on a witch hunt to really put the screws to this poor innocent person who just happened to really screw up for the remainder of this life. Yes, this is sad but I think society has gone to far in the blame game. Yes it happened, yes it is sad it happened, but lets move on and get some real victims. Like pediophiles.
Swaney
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 9 a.m.
This young man was careless and killed the father of two children. He deserves to go to trial. Society can not give the driver a free pass because he's young and stupid. He is 20, carries a license and we should all remember that driving is a responsibility not a god given right right.
ffej440
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 8:45 a.m.
Bikes should have to plated and insured just like cars and riders should have to pass a test and get an operators permit just like everyone else on the road. The funds generated should then be used to build more bike paths. Although it sounds like this was no fault of the biker, many wrecks are. I have been hit by a reckless bike rider that caved in my door (My insurance got to pay for!)
Greg S
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 8:23 a.m.
It does seem like the chances of a fatality would be far lesser by combining bicylers with pedestrians rather than automobiles. I personally have pedaled many of the local surface streets and felt much safer on the sidewalk than on the road. I feel terrible for both involved, the man who lost his life as well as the young man who hit him. He will live with it for the rest of his life.
V-Rex
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 8:22 a.m.
We will have to see the final outcome of the trial and the results of the police investigation to better understand this tragic event. I have been a cyclist who uses the road for over 40 years. I have cycled in numerous states and two other countries. I use the road with caution and use a mirror because I know drivers need help keeping us all safe. I do not use sidewalks when riding because I often exceed 10 mph which is the limit on most paved trails and sidewalks. I make some exceptions like when a trail is available when going uphill (I usually don't go much over 10 mph then). If you were to take a ride with the Ann Arbor Bicycle Touring Society, you would realize that bikers safely take thousands of trips on Washtenaw County roads each year. I am aware of two tragic accidents this year: the one in this story and one where a biker was nearly killed by a sleepy driver near Plymouth this summer. My attitude is that if a driver can slow down a few seconds for a garbage truck, postal vehicle, pedestrian, or other obstacle he or she can slow down until it is safe to pass a bike. That is part of the law in most states and it is common sense. Thanks to texting and other distractions, I am extra vigilant with the mirror, but a case like this one could happen to anyone. One of my pet peeves is other cyclists, joggers, pedestrians, and other slow moving users of the road who wear dark colors and use no lights at night. Drivers need more help from them. I like to wear lots of yellow or orange, and I have front and tail lights. I no longer use the phone while driving. If it is important they can leave a message and I will stop and call back when I safely can. We need to keep our eyes on the road and help each other regardless of what we are driving.
ChrisW
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 8:06 a.m.
The bike paths should be separated from the car lanes. If nothing else, they should put rumble strips on the fog line. Seems like we should just have wider sidewalks with room for walkers and bicyclists both.
Julie
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 7:59 a.m.
I can't believe the number of people saying that "everyone" takes their eyes of the road for a moment. He was driving with both tires over the fog line for 4-5 seconds? That is a LONG time! Clearly he was completely distracted by something. If my eyes are off the road, it's for a second or less. I have no idea what he was doing, but I must say that this tragedy should spark a law banning all cell phone use and texting while driving.
gardener
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 7:51 a.m.
I feel sorry for both the family of the biker, AND for this young man. Everyone is throwing fault at the driver.....in my opinion that is not right. I personally have been on the road more times than I can count, where I have had to be behind a bicyclist who is riding in the road, and creating a very unsafe situation for everyone...if you try to get around them, you face oncoming traffic...to stay behind them, you risk getting rear-ended, or the biker losing his balance and falling. Bikers can say all they want about their right to be on the road, but, they also need to realize they are also causing a huge safety hazzard. NO ONE who drives can say that they have NEVER taken their eyes off the road for one second. EVERYONE has to look in their rearview mirror...everyone at one time or another will look briefly at something on the side of the road. To say you must NEVER take your eyes off the road in front of you means that you must never look at other traffic coming from intersections, people passing you from behind...and you must certainly never look in your mirror at the flashing lights behind you coming from an ambulance or police car! How could a policeman do his/her job if they can't look around themselves? Good grief people, get real! How many people talk on cell phones while driving? How many turn on the radio and change the channels? Do you not ever take your eyes off the road to look at your SPEEDOMETER?????? Lets all quit throwing rediculous blame here. Bikes need to stay OUT OF TRAFFIC to be safe, and there is not a person who drives who hasn't taken their eyes off the road for one reason or another.
11GOBLUE11
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 7:21 a.m.
This situation is no doubt an absolute tragedy anyway you look at it. I'm with the others that are a bit perplexed by the whole thing though. I have biked down S Maple on a couple of occassions, and it scared me so much I stopped. Same thing goes for Lohr, south of Ellsworth. I know bikers are not supposed to ride on sidewalks, but where there is one I do anyway...I just go into the grass when I come upon people. I mention this generally, as I don't believe there was a sidewalk where this tragedy occurred. Also, I'm curious what the bicyclist was wearing. I saw a runner a few days ago, just north of the Lohr-Ellsworth intersection, running north up the hill, against traffic in the southbound lane of the road, wearing all black at dusk. The sidewalk wasn't being used and vehicles come zipping over that hill. The odds of this runner getting hit are very high. That being said I drove the area where this bicyclist was killed, and with clear weather during the day, I cannot understand how a motorist would not see a bicyclist on this strech of road at least 150 meters before the motorist reached the bicyclist (I could see 300+ meters). Like I said, perplexed, and an awful tragedy.
nekkidfish
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 6:53 a.m.
This young man is living out one of my greatest fears. Living with the fact that he killed someone accidently and then being charged with a crime. It took me awhile but I have realized that any bicyclist has more right to roads designed for cars than the cars the road was designed for. As a driver I am not allowed to impede traffic by going 30-45 mph less than the posted speed. Nor am I as driver allowed to decide which part of the road I can take my lane from even though I pay taxes for the upkeep of said road. I am not allowed to ignore lanes designed for my car so I can drive next to another vehicle and chit-chat. My personal belief is that if there is no bike lane then no bikes should be on the road. If a cyclist chooses to ride on a road with no bike lane then the cyclist should be at fault if he gets hit. If cyclists want more bike lanes (as if they use them anyway) then there should be a tax on bicycles/helmets/spandex to fund bike lane construction. Meanwhile, I do my best to avoid driving where and when most bicyclists are out. My heart goes out to both families involved, there is grief enough for both to live with regardless which side of the "fog-line" you are on.
KJMClark
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 6:05 a.m.
Wow, DennisP, that's logical. So let's keep going. - Pedestrians clearly don't belong anywhere near a road, because motorists sometimes just go off the sides - it just happens. Heck, people shouldn't even check their mailboxes. - Motorcyclists - they aren't protected either. They should show their common sense and stay off the roads too. - Compact cars aren't really big enough either. This crash could have killed someone in a compact car, so we should get all compact cars off the road because it isn't safe. - For that matter, most people in a crash with a semi driver won't survive in anything smaller than a tank. We should get all of them off the road too. I mean after all, there are semis and garbage trucks and beer trucks (oh my!), and their drivers wander over the center line all the time. It just isn't safe! I think it would be easier for everyone to just remember to keep their eyes on the road, but I could be wrong. It seems to me that the law works just fine, except for a very rare time like this one when someone completely forgets what the law says and breaks it in a really dangerous way. Unlike you, I don't see that every day. Please tell me where you drive so I can stay away.
DennisP
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 4:31 a.m.
There's no doubt that the law allows bikes to share the road with cars. However, the point that many are making is that the "law" operates only after the accident. It doesn't do the deceased much good for anyone to argue he had the right of way. Bicycle road laws derive from an age where motorcars drove 20 mph and were few and far between. We still need the laws because there are going to be instances when bikes will be on the road. However, common sense should tell bicyclists that they should avoid proximity to autos and trucks that can move 55 mph or more and weigh 2 tons or more especially in the evening and operated by almost anyone under all sorts of mental states, physical abilities and driving skills. That's why they put seat belts and air bags in cars. Accidents are inevitable despite the best intentions of everyone. However, when bicycles are involved, accidents of that sort almost always are fatal. The young man made a mistake, one that all of us can say with certainty is not uncommon just from what you observe when driving every day. He will pay a dear social price for it. The bicyclist made a mistake too, rest his soul, for not considering his family when he put himself at high risk riding on the side of the road. He paid an ultimate price taking that risk. No law will make his family whole again, no law will resurrect the father of those kids. Forget about arguments of what the law says is right, use your head. Don't surrender your life and safety into some stranger's hands on the premise that the "law" will protect you.
jb82
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 12:30 a.m.
I feel horrible for the victim and his family. At the same time, I think it is completely studpid for a biker to ride his or her bicycle on the side of a main road. It is horrible that Wahl is being charged with negligent homicide. Bike riders who ride their bicycle on the side of a main road flirt with a potential accident each time. I seem to be able to ride my bike all with time without ever rididng on main road. Most streets in Ann Arbor have something called a sidewalk. Furthermore, there are a plethora of drivers on road who do not deserve a license. Hell, a shopper was ran over by a 90 year old woman in a Meijer parking lot recently.
USMA2014
Thu, Oct 15, 2009 : 10:37 p.m.
This is a tragedy, however attests to the fact that bikes should not be on the road regardless of the law. They put themselves in danger- the law may say you have the right, but in the end your body will bear the burden before the law can take effect. The dude should have paid more attention but honestly I would seriously doubt that anyone hasnt taken a second or two on the road where they werent paying full attention. Bikers - please be safe and wear full on body reflective gear and dont go in lanes. I hit a biker who jumped from the bike lane out in front of me- cop saw the whole thing and I was not faulted- both of us were fine ( iwas on a motorcycle). I think the kid should not be in trouble- biking on the road has risks just like motorcycling and driving. I am not trying to be a jerk just stating what I feel.I am truly sorry for the family.
slug
Thu, Oct 15, 2009 : 9:18 p.m.
It's called a fog line??
a2cents
Thu, Oct 15, 2009 : 8:18 p.m.
No curb can stop a 3000#-plus vehicle... Drivers must pay attention while driving & share the road. It wasn't dark at the time of this accident and bicyclist's relationship to the fog line is irrelevant. He can take the lane or part thereof as safety dictates. Cyclists riding a narrow shoulder or hugging the line only tempts cars to "sneak by" (guess who loses if they misjudge)... but that's irrelevant when the car occupies the shoulder and isn't looking.
notnecessary
Thu, Oct 15, 2009 : 7:50 p.m.
It's a shame this gentleman died the way he did. It worries me though about driving, especially at night. It is often hard to see bicyclists. Personally I think there should be bike lanes considerably apart from the rest of the road with like a curb or something separating them to protect both the bikers and drivers. It would scare me to death to ride a bike in the road, especially on a road such as Maple in Saline.