Daniel4

I'm guessing you don't think they need to?

FBinNY 

Or that they don't think they need to.

CliffordK

Oregon has a legal classification of "Vulnerable Road Users".

https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_801.608

Pedestrians, Horseback riders, Cyclists, Tractors, Skateboards, Highway Workers, etc.

Ok, so that seems to be a definition without a lot of additional legal discussion of the whole group of users. Yet, I think they treat different users differently. There is a Vulnerable user of a public way note with respect to careless driving and injuries or deaths.

https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_811.135

Now, the Oregon laws do specifically discuss passing bicycles.

https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_811.065

It is somewhat complex. But one should pass:


It is unique to bicycles, but some of the same issues come up with construction workers, police officers, flaggers, first responders, etc.

Troul 

2017+ the F series received aluminum paneling.

Paul Barnard

With all of that new information, how should we blame the cyclists for lane position and group formation?

FBinNY 

The only difference between a group ride like this and solo or single file riders is that when accidents happen they involve bigger numbers.

Essentially the normal statistical probablies are now clumped vs. spread out over time or geography.

Plane crashes make news while vastly more people are killed in cars but its rarely newsworthy.

I-Like-To-Bike

I'll make it clear. "Bicycling safety advocates" who post about a legal, moral or safety related requirement (or need for a requirement) for motorists to always slow down while passing cyclists, (or in the absence of a law should always slow down) regardless of lane separation or lateral distance separating the vehicle from the bicyclists, are substituting wishful thinking about bicycling safety for reality.

Bicyclists who expect only slow passes whenever riding on the road and get surprised or perturbed when it doesn't occur are raising the likelihood of a very unpleasant ride for themselves.

FBinNY 

More of your typical strawman BS. It doesn't relate in any way to anything I posted.

I suggest you reread post 111 which was simply a suggestion for guidance in response to your request.

I don't know what you're finding so troubling, and being as clear as I can possibly be ------ I don't care

This is a forum. People post their opinions. If you have different one, post that. Readers are then free to read the various opinions and draw their own conclusions.

GhostRider62

There is no new information. The cause of the crash is still unknown. The driver did not intentional hit them. He claims a steering malfunction (doubtful on the latest Ford trucks). Even if the cyclist were not following the law WRT formation and there is no evidence of that, the crash would not their fault and is still a terrible, horrific tragedy.

What is the real tragedy is the failure to learn from these crashes, partly due to the snarky, antagonistic peanut gallery who think they know everything and any opinion divergent from their gets pounced upon

Someone in this thread wrote

That is not true.

A high percentage of crashes are on secondary roads outside of cities (30-40% depending on definition and what report you read) and the vast majority are rear crashes (front of vehicle striking the cyclists from the rear). Every single cyclist that I know who was hit or killed was exactly like that, from behind on fast roads well outside cities in the country. The risk of death from the rear should not be minimized.

https://highways.dot.gov/safety/prov.../bicycle-lanes

Arizona's motorist-cyclist fatality statistics are not very good, three times worse than NJ. NJ is the most densely populated state and our roads are old and lousy. I am sure we have some bridges where riding is allowed but none within my cycling range in NJ. We have to walk on the walkway. I hate having to walk understand the law. That Az bridge is a death trap. When I ride and a vehicle is approaching from the rear, I observe my mirror. Twice in my life I have had to ride into the ditch because the motorist obviously did not see me and would have killed me otherwise. That evasive maneuver is not possible on a bridge where you are like a sitting duck. Sure, you might have the legal authority in your state to be there. But in heavy traffic on a four lane bridge, why take the chance. Walk. Just my opinion. Flame away, I don't care.

CliffordK

Much of the road has curbs. So, not quite the same as a Jersey Barrier, but still one can't just head for the ditch.

That bridge needs better access to the sidewalks from the road. It doesn't appear to have a lot of pedestrians. And the sidewalk would have been the one safe place from an accident like the above one.

The riverbed appeared dry, and would be a great place for a path that would be good most of the year. Or, perhaps "gravel" riding.

I-Like-To-Bike

Strawman? You are not the only poster on this thread.

I suggest you reread posts 101 and 102 where the alleged requirement for motorist to always slow down and pass slowly was raised. I'll make it easy for you:

You chose to answer while the other poster ignores the question and chooses to remain silent on the subject.

I-Like-To-Bike

The value of a mirror cannot be over-estimated for situational awareness of vehicles approaching from the rear, especially on high speed and non-urban roads.

It doesn't offer any protection from collisions that are a result of at least one of the vehicles (bicycle or motor vehicle) suddenly swerving while passing (or being passed) for whatever reason into the adjacent lane (or across a minimum 3-4 foot lateral separation distance) and sideswiping or being struck by another vehicle(s).

CliffordK

You know, when driving, if visibility is good, and the passing lane is clear I don't really think about slowing down when approaching a cyclist. Also for urban bike paths I like to move as far left as possible when passing a bike, but still go with the flow of traffic.

If visibility is compromised, I like to slow down some just in case I can't execute the pass and would need to pull in and follow the cyclist until the road is clear.

FBinNY 

Yes, and my answer was clearly different, so I've no interest in debating or defending what other people say.

I-Like-To-Bike

Reads like the normal and proper way to drive a vehicle and safely pass slower vehicles, including single and group cyclists.

Slowing down for no obvious reason, especially in a high(er) speed passing lane and disrupting the flow of traffic is likely to lead to results similar to the effect of phantom braking in traffic.

GhostRider62

I failed to mention the Varia, it also helps a lot on my upright compared to on my recumbent where it is not as helpful.

I am still not 100% clear on this crash in Goodyear. How did the defendant hit the jersey barrier? He either fell asleep or got the so-called "Death Wobble" and given he was towing a loaded trailer, it might have jackknifed or even if it was loaded improperly. He might have been really hauling ass to not be able to stop. The length of the debris field says sleep to me.

UniChris

For a single cyclist just trying to get somewhere, sure.

But watch the videos of this group's typical rides - no way they could use a sidewalk, apart from some very brief out-of-character way to get around a particular small obstacle on the way out of town to the point where the actual "ride" can begin.

It's pretty clear they chose this route as part of their recurring Saturday morning metric century because its width, great visibility and extremely sparse Saturday morning traffic are a good match for a large, fast road ride.

To a large extent, the bridge is actually the best part of that stretch rather than being a chokepoint, since the median is paved and drivers can be seen taking advantage of that to give extra space.

Many of them may ride gravel too - but this was their traditional road ride.

GhostRider62

They should have been on the walkway. There are videos online of that exact bridge with cyclists riding it.

No blame, this is what I would do. Period. Too many drivers texting, eating, watching videos. Get a lifted truck and look down at other drivers, you would be amazed what you would see. Of course, cyclists have the right to ride on the road.

himespau 

The idea that a pack of fast moving cyclists should take a sidewalk when they have the right to the road and are forbidden from riding on a sidewalk seems...misguided. Likewise that a pack of roadies should decide to go offroad through a riverbed that is sometimes dry instead of a paved and legally accessible bridge? Were they supposed to know that this one time there was going to be a negligent driver on the road who might kill them? Or are they supposed to do this every time on all bridges just in case? Why are you blaming the cyclists for making the legal and rational choice that has worked for them every other time that they've done it?

Clyde1820

Sure helps, whatever else can be said.

You never know what might occur, during a pass (whether the occupant of that lane is a truck, ambulance/fire, car, bicycle or whatever). High overtaking speeds result in erasure of much of the safety margin a passer might otherwise have, if (for whatever reason) there is some impediment in the road, a maneuver needs to be made, or another occupant of a neighboring lane ends up swerving. No telling what might happen if one can't see clearly ahead, whether in a curve, or coming passed a large vehicle that blocks the sight lines, or approaching a mass of cyclists occupying a lane, or what.

Decades ago, the driving instructor I had always drilled into our heads warnings about not knowing for certain what's about to come down, when approaching or closely passing others. Particularly with respect to speed differentials. We've got laws for, say, safety/fire/emergency vehicles and construction crews on a roadway, with respect to other travelers are supposed to behave near them. While there might not be laws related to the average passing of a slower-moving vehicle or lane occupant, it's hard to avoid seeing the potential risk of such a situation, just based on overtaking speed differentials.

On a bike, I always appreciate drivers of vehicles who don't blow by me at 50mph on the marked-35mph roadway I often take.

In a vehicle, I always try to appreciate the situation's risks, sight lines and overtaking speeds, and their attendant risks. Particularly when passing others who aren't wrapped in 4000 lbs of steel, I suspect most do appreciate not being passed rapidly, however closely one might be passing.

IMO, it's general courtesy to respect the simple idea that others have an equal right to be on a roadway ... even if traveling more slowly, even if not wrapped in 4000 lbs of steel, etc. In some cases, the traffic laws also dictate what's required. But general safety and risk mitigation does, at least so far as I'm concerned, justify a modicum of self-restraint in such passing situations. Whichever side of the equation (the "giving" or "receiving" end) one happens to be.

And, too, not every road's characteristics are similar to what others imagine "typical" roads are. If the roads a person drives or rides on are all healthy, wide and easily managed by vehicles of all sizes and speeds, that's great. Many roads, perhaps most, simply aren't that way. Zero shoulder, crud on the road, poor sight lines, poor lighting (ie, dappled shadow/sunlight), whatever. The one road nearest me is like that. Fairly narrow, zero shoulder, ditches, often branches in the road, lots of side roads for entry/egress (often without looking), involving no end to the risks a cyclist can face going along that road. Plenty of people choose to drive at 50+ mph on that thing. Cyclists be damned. Slower-moving (35mph) vehicles be damned. Good way to mow someone down or run into a tree on the other side of the ditch.

Always worth considering, when overtaking another. Might well involve one or more of these risk elements, which some of us contend with daily on some of the roads near where we live. Situations in which most would be safer and better-served if people would stow it for a moment and drive/pass more safely along such routes.

From the article:
Yup.

Drillium Dude 

Come on, now - common sense dictates maintaining a safe separation from any vehicle off to the side of any roadway - especially where speeds exceed 40mph - because the stopped vehicle(s) are vulnerable. That same vulnerability applies to a single, or group of cyclists.

You seem more predisposed to to arguing semantics than adding constructively to the discussion in this particular tragedy. Please, don't read anything between the lines in my post - the key words are common and sense, and there's no muddy water there.

DD

RCMoeur 

My previous comment was based on earlier bicyclist crash studies published by FHWA.

That page seems to rely on a study in TRR 2673 on bike crashes in certain areas. I've requested a copy of that study for review, as the notably different findings than earlier studies warrant a closer look. I'm acquainted with the authors.

livedarklions

The entire nature of these threads where people speculate wildly then start arguing for their speculation over corpses is uncivil.

Sorry, but this is as bad a desecration as letting random people picked up on the street perform autopsies.

I-Like-To-Bike

The difference in meaning between slowing down (speed) when passing, and maintaining minimum safe distance (lateral space) when passing is NOT semantic. Two separate issues. No one suggested that maintaining a minimum safe distance is not necessary for safe passing, that was a given.
I read that you are discussing maintaining a safe distance; the issue and questionable suggestion was that drivers should always slow down and proceed slowly whenever passing cyclists regardless of lateral distance, raised back on post 101 and which prompted someone else to discuss laws regarding passing stopped emergency vehicles.

Probably few drivers on the highway share your version of "common sense" and slow down in passing lanes when there is no requirement or safety benefit provided, and there is the raised probability for initiating a rear end collision from other drivers who don't have the "common sense" to anticipate a driver in front of them with the rare "common sense" to unexpectedly slow down while passing.

My common sense indicates that cyclists who feel uncomfortably vulnerable whenever traffic speed exceeds 40 mph, even when it is in another traffic lane; should take up cycling where there is no traffic at all.

Drillium Dude 

Slowing is also common sense. As for the rest: TL/DR.

DD