Five Nevada cyclists have been killed after a truck driver hit a group out for a ride to celebrate a police officer’s retirement. The cyclists were struck from behind, as was a Subaru hatchback that had been travelling with them as a ‘safety vehicle’.
The Reno Gazette reports that around 18 cyclists were travelling together when the crash occurred on US Highway 95 south of Boulder City at around 9.40am.
Four men and a woman were killed. Three more cyclists were injured, as was the driver of the Subaru.
Authorities said the cyclists were hit after the box truck driver crossed into the bike lane.
According to Trooper Travis Smaka, the safety vehicle had riders in front and also behind and when the truck rammed the group, the Subaru also went into some of those in front.
The truck driver, who wasn’t injured or suspected of being impaired, stopped at the scene.
One of the surviving cyclists, Michael Anderson, who had just retired after 22 years as a Metro Police officer said: “I’ve seen stuff, obviously as a police officer. But it’s your friends … I’ve never seen that.”
Anderson said that winds had broken the group up and that some riders had been sheltering behind the Subaru.
“It’s the worst thing I can ever see in my life,” he said, adding that he had contacted the victims’ families. “Didn’t know how to say it to them,” he said. “It’s terrible.”
Add new comment
13 comments
Suprised the authorities haven't called this out as a potential 'terrorist attack' prior to xmas as below:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/04/berlin-christmas-market-at...
Seems a driving licience is a licience to kill - complete INSANITY👎
Looking at the linked news item
and
And it's all fine, because
It is so weird that the Americans just accept road issues like this as tragic accidents (because the driver was not speeding or on drink/ drugs.) Don't they have just general death by atroicious driving charges over there?
Maybe they do. Maybe like here they are rarely invoked...
I disagree, I suspect that in this case, even without Coppers being the victims, they would have done court for death by (random roll) driving. It would depend on how bad the drivers in the Jury are though for which one they would actually be done for it.
The CPS don't have the balls to go for a death by driving except in the most extreme cases. They usually opt for the lower charge or agree with the defence lawyer to go with the lower charge as the guilty party can't quite comprehend that their driving has fallen into the dangerous category!
they would go for it in this case with the victims being police officers
Yes - Vehicular Manslaughter.
Where does it say that it's all fine? I find it very strange that you interpret factual reporting on a truly horrific issue in this way.
Because like here the media go to great lengths to tell us that the driver wasn't injured. It's a totally unnecessary addition to the report and negates the true horror of what has happened. 5 people died and the motorist wasn't injured. Course they haven't been injured. They're in a metal box with a roll cage!
During the summer a toddler was killed by a motorist Yet the press felt the need to advise us that the motorist was not injured. Seriously. Why do that? All of us in our respective regions will be able to say the same thing. Motorist kills vulnerable road user but the motorist isn't injured. Really. All it says is that if you choose active travel your pretty much stuffed as there is nothing to protect you.
Well actually I did wonder if the driver was also one of the casualities and the article very quickly answered the thought in my head. Its not unessecary information, it's pertinent, doesn't negate anything and should absolutely be reported along with the other facts of the incident.
Agreed. It is relevant to know if the driver was injured or not. They could possibly have had a medical condition that caused the crash.
I would have replied, but giff77 covered it better than I could