|
Cyclist Rear Ended at 55mph
A news article also indicated he needed facial reconstructive surgery: https://www.kyma.com/news/cyclists-r...own/1079075565 If you start going frame by frame right before the impact (hotkeys for YouTube are the period and comma keys), you will notice the motorist wasn't even looking at the cyclist. They were looking straight ahead with their hand up, which presumably was to block sunlight. While I can buy the excuse the sun as in their eyes, it's still not an accident. If you can't see, you slow down enough to adjust for the conditions. A person is going to be royally messed up for the rest of his life because someone else didn't have the patience to exercise what they learned in driver's education. This is also why I get a little tired of hearing education as the answer to all our problems. It serves a useful purpose, but it only goes so far. Motorists do this stuff all the time because they don't fear the consequences. Our penalties are a joke, and we don't even require proficiency testing every so often. Seriously, why is it an unreasonable expectation that one be required to retest on the road every 5-10 years? |
I'd be riding on the shoulder instead of the fog line.
|
Originally Posted by trailangel
(Post 21109102)
I'd be riding on the shoulder instead of the fog line.
|
It's good that he survived this. It looks like it may not have been a direct hit, but instead a grazing hit on his left side. A few inches more and it would have probably been fatal.
|
|
Originally Posted by JW Fas
(Post 21108973)
Seriously, why is it an unreasonable expectation that one be required to retest on the road every 5-10 years?
|
Originally Posted by sarhog
(Post 21109490)
Do you actually believe that a periodic test would have prevented this?
We all know 100% of crashes can't be eliminated. What we can say is a population with higher average proficiency would be a lot less likely to causes these kinds of incidents. The alternative is stay the course and ticket the drivers who happen to get caught after the fact. However, it's also known that an ounce of prevention is worth far more than a pound of cure. |
Originally Posted by JW Fas
(Post 21109553)
Note the clever sophistry here. A loaded question is being used to suggest that a specific incident already in the past could not be prevented by a wide-sweeping measure.
We all know 100% of crashes can't be eliminated. What we can say is a population with higher average proficiency would be a lot less likely to causes these kinds of incidents. The alternative is stay the course and ticket the drivers who happen to get caught after the fact. However, it's also known that an ounce of prevention is worth far more than a pound of cure. I don't get that mentality, but it's all too common. |
,,
|
I am not sure the word "rear ended" is appropriate here. Hit. Run down. Bludgeoned. Those all come to mind.
Driver will barely get a pee pee smack unless they were drunk. |
Terrifying!
|
Originally Posted by JW Fas
(Post 21108973)
They were looking straight ahead with their hand up, which presumably was to block sunlight. While I can buy the excuse the sun as in their eyes, it's still not an accident.
Originally Posted by trailangel
(Post 21109102)
I'd be riding on the shoulder instead of the fog line.
One of the problems with the rumble strips is that if one is to the left of the rumble strips, one can't easily move right when traffic comes up behind. The other thing is that the cyclist must also be aware of the sun in the eyes problem. If the cyclist can't see, then the drivers behind him also can't see (so, proceed with that in mind). That is a high speed, 4 lane hwy... One of the types of roads that I try to avoid. But, if I have to ride one, then I try to get as far away from the cars as is practical. I do ride skinny tires, but that might be an argument to go fatter if it is part of a regular route (and the shoulder is rough, hard to tell from the video). During low traffic times, I'll often ride close to the white line, or sometimes in the lane, but move over when cars approach (which the rumble strip precludes). I've ridden rumbles... downhill, they can be really bad. :mad: |
I wonder if the cyclist saw it coming. Maybe not, as he did not appear to be moving right prior to impact.
I use a mirror and monitor every overtaking vehicle. I really can't imagine not doing so. |
Originally Posted by AlmostTrick
(Post 21109837)
I wonder if the cyclist saw it coming. Maybe not, as he did not appear to be moving right prior to impact.
I use a mirror and monitor every overtaking vehicle. I really can't imagine not doing so. I too went frame by frame @JW Fas :cry:, and I saw the driver putting her visor down, not shielding with her hand. I also saw the cyclist with his face to the pavement, mercifully unconscious at that point. |
As a reminder: Don't read the comments.
I wonder how I can access the 55mph roads nearby, and with the narrow or soft shoulders, it just seems like you need to be done by 9 am on a weekend morning. |
Originally Posted by trailangel
(Post 21109102)
I'd be riding on the shoulder instead of the fog line.
me too... and I hate those rumble strips. |
I'm never comfortable riding into the sun, even without traffic behind. If I'm having problems seeing it's far worse as a driver. I'm lucky enough to have a number of alternate routes that minimize the low sun visibility factor and I take full advantage of them when necessary.
|
Originally Posted by JW Fas
(Post 21109553)
Note the clever sophistry here. A loaded question is being used to suggest that a specific incident already in the past could not be prevented by a wide-sweeping measure.
We all know 100% of crashes can't be eliminated. What we can say is a population with higher average proficiency would be a lot less likely to causes these kinds of incidents. The alternative is stay the course and ticket the drivers who happen to get caught after the fact. However, it's also known that an ounce of prevention is worth far more than a pound of cure. I can agree with you that a population with a higher driving proficiency would lower the risk, but IMO, a periodic test doesn’t raise proficiency. |
While the driver is unquestionably 100% at fault here, I would under no circumstance be riding where that guy was riding. That shoulder didn't look that bad to me. Unless the shoulder is on fire, I'm to the right of the rumble strip.
|
Originally Posted by sarhog
(Post 21110023)
Wide sweeping measure? A test every 5 years is a wide sweeping measure?
I can agree with you that a population with a higher driving proficiency would lower the risk, but IMO, a periodic test doesn’t raise proficiency. What in your opinion will raise proficiency? The way I see it the initial growing pains will be a wake-up call. People who fail their retests will lose their licenses until they pass, and that will affect their ability to get to their jobs that pay their bills. Ubers and taxis get expensive after a while. |
I would have been right of the rumble strips.
|
Originally Posted by Unca_Sam
(Post 21109875)
It depends on the mirror and how often you check. I use one, and I would not have seen this one coming. A lot of folks have already chimed in that they would avoid this road, which makes me wonder if the statistics for getting rear-ended are already mitigated by avoiding the issue entirely.
As far as where to go, that is a problem with being to the left of the rumbles. I find a bike is very difficult to control on rumbles between 20 and 30 MPH. One can control the bike somewhat at slower speeds, but it isn't comfortable. Thus, one effectively is unable to react, should one realize that something is seriously wrong. One also can't move right when cars approach, then move back to clean pavement when they're gone. I'm not saying to never ride on a road like that. Sometimes there isn't much choice. But, if one does, give as big of a buffer as possible between bike and cars. Nonetheless, choose one's routes wisely. |
Originally Posted by JW Fas
(Post 21109553)
Note the clever sophistry here. A loaded question is being used to suggest that a specific incident already in the past could not be prevented by a wide-sweeping measure.
We all know 100% of crashes can't be eliminated. What we can say is a population with higher average proficiency would be a lot less likely to causes these kinds of incidents. The alternative is stay the course and ticket the drivers who happen to get caught after the fact. However, it's also known that an ounce of prevention is worth far more than a pound of cure. |
Cyclist Rear Ended at 55mph
Originally Posted by BobbyG
(Post 21109795)
Terrifying!
Originally Posted by Deal4Fuji
(Post 18795346)
I haven't had to cross that bridge yet, but the mental plan is to bail right into the grass or apron of the hwy if there is one.
Originally Posted by noodle soup
(Post 18795364)
Good luck with that plan
Originally Posted by noodle soup
(Post 18795419)
This is what I was getting at with Deal4Fuji. You might see it coming, but there's little that can be done to avoid it in the time you have.
FTR, I have also been rear-ended by a passing truck.
Originally Posted by AlmostTrick
(Post 21109837)
I wonder if the cyclist saw it coming. Maybe not, as he did not appear to be moving right prior to impact.
I use a mirror and monitor every overtaking vehicle. I really can't imagine not doing so.
Originally Posted by Unca_Sam
(Post 21109875)
It depends on the mirror and how often you check. I use one, and I would not have seen this one coming.
A lot of folks have already chimed in that they would avoid this road, which makes me wonder if the statistics for getting rear-ended are already mitigated by avoiding the issue entirely.
Originally Posted by Jim from Boston
(Post 18766635)
…When I was hit from behind, it was on a wide, low-volume, well-lit residential road at about 9 PM in June, by a “distracted driver.” The route was so calm that I was not closely monitoring my rearward view. In fact, though perhaps I could have ditched the bike, I’m glad I didn’t see it coming if I was going to get hit anyways.
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...3f6c62b28c.jpg https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...211fdb55eb.jpg I once read a comment that one should practice doing "bunny hops" so at least you could jump a curb if present on your right. Obviously that’s the ultimate use of a mirror, and now I monitor rearwards more frequently. So hopefully being aware of the situation behind, even when not in immediate danger, allows the rider to avoid a dangerous situation, even by pulling off the road. And other than my accident, I’ve never had the need to bail out. IMO, besides routine monitoring rearwards with the mirror, a most important use is to make quick decisions when encountering an obstacle in front of you, such as a car door, pothole, car entering your path, etc. Can you immediately veer left? Mirror threads are often popcorn threads, and I’m always dismayed when subscribers blithely write, often directed towards newbies, that you don’t need a mirror and it doesn’t help anyways. Why discourage such a simple piece of equipment? I’ve tried to think of the dangers of a mirror, and the best I’ve come up with is poking your eye with an eyeglass or helmet mounted mirror; or being too distracted by it, for example if you can’t really get used to it. Personally, I use an eyeglass mounted Take-a-Look mirror that allows me to maintain a forward-looking head position with just a sideward glance to see the rear. I really don’t want to turn my head for an over shoulder glance away from the line of travel when speeding downhill on a pothole-strewn road with heavy traffic to my left and parked cars to my right. Furthermore, wind noise can sometimes obscure the sound of a passing car. I find mirrors so easy to use, and so helpful that I wear both right and left (link). |
I keep thinking about this video.
First, there should be a requirement for all motorized vehicles to display a front license plate. Yes, it seems that the cyclist have been riding to the right of the rumble strips, which would have provided a warning to drivers who drift...but we don't know all the details of that stretch of road. But even so, a vehicle shouldn't hit another slower vehicle in the roadway. This made me think of a couple of roads I occasionally ride that have no practical shoulder. I ride with a take a look mirror which is wonderful for seeing traffic coming up behind me; but I wonder if I would have caught that car which seems to drift or swerve fairly close to impact. And even if I had, would there have been time to react and move out of danger. Based on the video it seems as if the driver is looking into the sun. Did the cyclist have a rear light to help be seen? Would it have even helped? Of course the driver has a lot to answer for, too. What a chilling video. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:04 AM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.