Another Peloton clobbered by pickup truck, in AZ. 2 dead so far.
 

https://www.azfamily.com/2023/02/25/...near-goodyear/

https://www.google.ca/maps/@33.38704...4!8i8192?hl=en

At 8 AM today a rear end collision in Goodyear AZ on Cotton Lane, on the far west side of Phoenix. It is on the bridge, with wide shoulder, over Gila River.
2 dead, 11 badly injured.
Truck must have been going very fast. It seems as if it was going southbound, from looking at the video. Male driver did stop and cooperate. Weather is sunny and hot.
I was looking at Cali snow reports, then happened to open Fox news Phoenix.
RIP

So while the police is investigating if speed or impairment was the cause, in my opinion the charge of Involuntary Manslaughter should be laid (as per Alec Baldwin case).


I see no reason that the driver should be released as in most stories like this.

Heard about this this morning. Don't know if I know anyone in the group, but that's not really relevant - it's hard to see how this could have happened without reckless negligence, unexpected medical incident, or malicious intent. I hope the crash investigation by Goodyear PD can uncover exactly what happened, and the motor vehicle driver staying at the scene may have made that easier. But that will take time, and I don't want to unduly speculate in the absence of evidence.

My wife said that on "social media" commentors on the story were saying "they should have been on the sidewalk" and other similar comments. :(

Just to clarify: weather at 8 AM in the Valley was cloudy and 50s. Now it's upper 70s & sunny, but expecting showers overnight. In any case, weather shouldn't have been a factor in the crash (not saying anyone is alleging that, but just wanted to clarify).

Most likely is there was heavy traffic, maybe a semi blocking half his view.
Riding double wide could be trouble on a bridge.

I don't know what the traffic conditions were at the time, but one of the reasons riders like Cotton Lane south of MC85 is because it doesn't typically have a lot of traffic volume, especially on weekends (unless it's a day with an event at the raceway). So it's more likely to see light traffic than heavy in a Saturday morning, with the exceptions noted above.

It's a 4-lane road with standard bike lanes, although a large group could also occupy the adjacent lane (which is not strictly illegal per Arizona law, unless the riders were more than two abreast in the travel lane, which could be seen as a violation of ARS 28-815.B.) But that shouldn't have been a factor in the crash, as the roadway has multiple lanes and a reasonable driver could overtake in the leftmost lane.

Sad for the cyclists and sad that I'm never surprised by these stories.
.
.
.

Why would anyone ever be surprised by a traffic crash?

Why would you assume that?

There's usually not much traffic out there at 8:30 am on a Saturday morning, although more and more houses are going up out there by the Estrellas. and as stated earlier, it was just a hair over 50°, which may seem like nice weather to the snowbirds, but it's FREEZING CONDITIONS for desert rats.

So sad we lost a couple of fellow riders.

Based on you link, I would not remotely call that a "wide" shoulder.

It's not a non-existent shoulder, but it's not big enough for being passed at the likely ordinary speeds to be fully comfortable unless drivers are also veering away from it a bit, which they may be hesitant to do if the left lane is occupied.

If you find an image with a vehicle in it to use for size comparison, you'll see that a disabled one pulled over into that shoulder would protrude into the righthand travel lane.

At each end of the bridge, it's almost erased by some oddly angling paving differences.

And with all that wasted space in the center, which on the bridge itself is paved just like the rest, the bridge portion could easily could have had a fully lane width shoulder or breakdown lane - the present configuration doesn't seem to be of benefit to anyone.

Review the chronology of the case you're trying to compare to and you'll see that charges were made 15 months later - which is to say as a result of the investigation, not before it.

Because you understand nothing of law or the very limited purpose of pre-trial detention.

If you want to call for action, call for re-painting the travel lanes further inward to create more comfortable space to bike at the outside.

Google view shows from 2021, so it is likely twinned farther out now and we are both misguided. Yes, the middle is pretty unnecessary.
On the bridge the shoulder is for sure 6 feet, plenty wide for single file at ANY speed.
Looking at the outdated conditions, the very narrow shoulder before and at the start of the bridge would probably be where the trouble started.
Have to get the locals to say what's with the road now and I should butt out.

These conversations are troubling to me. The shoulder width has nothing to do with a collision. The existence of a shoulder is not important. Nor is the number of cyclists abreast.

The motorists need to be traveling at a speed which allows avoidance by changing lanes or slowing down. My only question about the collision is why the motorists did not drive defensively. The infrastructure is not relevant.

One has to wonder, and also avoid speculating, how the driver couldn't avoid the collision, or at least reduce the number of riders he hit.

That many bikes is too much to not be seen, and any driver movement to the left should have helped.

So, either totally distracted or inattentive, or given the time, possibly blinded by the sun(?), or something else.

At this point, I would put the onus on the driver to explain why and how it's both unintended and/or not grossly negligent.

Hard to imagine a plausible excuse.

In terms of the crash, I agree. Regardless of whether it was a 2-lane 20' wide road or a 6-lane parkway with full shoulders, the crash should not have occurred.

In terms of Arizona law, Arizona does have a (archaic) "no more then 2 abreast" law that could come into play regarding citations. That law has been on the books for 40 years or more, and there have been much more advanced analyses of motor vehicle - bicycle interactions since then. The current law could encourage overtaking in a lane that isn't wide enough, which can decrease overall safety.

Indeed - it's the Basic Speed law, in Arizona ARS 28-701. Of course it would have been better had the crash not occurred, and from initial reports this crash seems entirely preventable had the motor vehicle driver made different decisions. Here's hoping the forensic investigation, witness statements, driver statement, and other evidence results in a reasonably clear report and appropriate legal action.

Just to fill readers in, it happened on a north-south roadway on an overcast morning (no precipitation) about an hour after sunrise.

A 2 motorcycle head on crash happened near in front of me in Hanoi, but my view was blocked. They were both following a bus and of course pulled out to pass and BOOM.
Same kind of thing happened on the Bethlehem Bridge in 2012. Cyclist forced a full lane change by the bus. Car changes lane and boom, Bike in left track couldn't be avoided.
Too bad the police never reveal the real sequence of these events.

I only suggested low sun as a possibility to exclude.

I leave excuses to lawyers, judges and juries, but I like to explore explanations in the hope that we might prevent repeats.

In this case, if we apply Occam's Razor, and consider sight lines and the time element we're left with either intent, or a very long span of eyes off the road.

So, unless the driver can come up with another plausible explanation, he's guilty of either manslaughter or murder.

Hopefully, the DA will impanel a grand jury to determine which.

According to what I've read, it is the West Valley Cycle Club whose riders were struck.

you missed the point. And with your statement, “cycling on many highways is akin to Russian roulette.” I refuse to blame the cyclist when a motorist does not control their vehicle.

Thete is no doubt that there are roads which can be more forgiving to challenged motorists. But getting struck by one of them does not and should not suggest the cyclist was at fault. Or, even made a blunder with road choice that holds the cyclist even partially responsible for the collision.

visiting earth for the first time is a learning experience depending on the earthling encountered.

Two lanes in each direction and presumably the group of cyclist were occupying one of those lanes. I can see no reason other than negligence for a vehicle to run into them. Seems unlikely that an hour after sunrise the sun would be low enough to be blinding. Also, someone said in this thread it was overcast at that time. Regardless, if the sun were blinding, then you slow down as needed to avoid running into things.

I don't see that the cyclist did anything wrong, assuming I understand the basic situation. Whether they were riding more abreast than legally allowed, has no bearing on the accident, assuming they were all within the one lane. The shoulder has nothing to do with this.

But the other reality is, all of us are human and we all make mistakes while driving. Most of the time, the mistake doesn't cause harm, sometimes it does. While this accident involved cyclists, it seems as likely as not, the driver would have run into anything going slower then they were. Why? I suppose that will come out in the investigation. My guess is distracted and if the driver is younger, I'd bet on texting while driving.

Of course cyclist are much more vulnerable so what might have been a simple traffic accident with minor injuries had the truck driven into the back of another vehicle, in this case lost lives and likely a range of injuries including ones that will affect people for the rest of their lives.

Indeed, taking to our roads, irrespective of the means of conveyance, is Russian Roulette. Russian Roulette isn't unique to bicyclists.

https://i.postimg.cc/JhyHNQMj/Screen...7-13-34-AM.png

That area is seeing less than 12 hours of daylight right now. The sun had been up for over an hour. That puts it at least 15 degrees above the horizon. I can't fathom sun being an issue. As you have correctly identified, if the sun doesn't allow you to see other road users, your legal duty is to fix the issue.

The sun factor is likely moot. Earlier I mentioned it and the next post mentioned that this road was north/south.