mr_bill

From his shadow he appears to be standing on the ground.

-mr. bill

JoeyBike

How comforting.

JW Fas

And you would be correct.

If you do a careful frame-by-frame as the officer approaches me, the moment before impact his tires are pointed directly at the center of the stop line. If you keep advancing the frames until I'm spun around 180 degrees, the officer has just begun to straighten his wheels, which are STILL pointed at the stop line.

JW Fas

There has been quite a bit of foliage growth and poles installed since those images were taken five years ago.

JW Fas

Except if you actually analyze the physics involved, he still would've hit me had I been back at the line where the visibility is basically nothing. Do a frame-by-frame as the officer approaches me and note his wheel angles before and after hitting me. In both instances he was still pointed at the stop line.

JW Fas

It was a 2012 Scott Foil 15. I had the bike checked out at a local shop where we spotted carbon damage on the fork, seatpost, and rims. For the frame I took it to Smithers Customs where Steve Smithers spotted a compression fracture in the headtube. If anyone is skeptical of Steve's expertise, his business deals in making custom carbon fiber motorcycle parts and bicycle carbon repair. He and Dan Kellerby own the patent for filament spun carbon which is used in their own brand of wheels (FSE). Steve also designed the Canyon Aeroad frame.

JW Fas

It certainly was impeded at the line. Once I'm past 10 posts and can upload photos and URLs I'll show you folks a screenshot taken off my helmet cam footage.

Paul Barnard

Welcome to the forum. I am interested in seeing the photo.

Chris0516

The video indirectly reminded me, of when I was rear-ended several years ago. While I was waiting to merge into traffic.

wphamilton

Maybe, but most likely not. I can't say that any driver would definitely NOT hit you, or anything else, because there is no 100% predicting what a driver will do.

However, my judgement DID arise from a frame by frame examination of the video. It's not Physics, unless you're saying that from his initial path it would be impossible to avoid you. But I don't think that you are saying that, because it clearly wouldn't be true. With the bike further back, at the legitimate stop line, not only is the angle wider for him to avoid you but he has multiples of the time to see and avoid you. I am very confident that he would have - after all, that's exactly why the stop line is back there.

genec

Yeah, except he wasn't paying attention... being distracted by the phone and all.

And no one is required to stay at a stop line... after they have stopped.

But yeah, we can armchair quarterback this all day long.

wphamilton

It's not "armchairing" to point out the fact. If you are beyond the stop line, and stopped, then you are in violation. More to the point, you are in a position making you more vulnerable, more likely to be struck, than you'd be in had you stopped legally at the stop line. These are the facts. Not speculation, not what-iffing, but the facts.

As far as the cop not paying attention goes, it's better to be further outside his path and allowing him more time to look up, so your objection is mute.

wphamilton

As you can see, there is NO obstruction due to weeds. Don't be moving the goal post there.

genec

4 pages of this and apparently you naysayers missed this in the OP link...
The cop also called another cop to report himself...

So "armchair" this all you want, the cop admitted fault, AND gave, as a reason, "distraction by phone."

JoeyBike

mr_bill

JW Fas

The weeds weren't as much of a problem as the rather full trees to the south. Plus, the view you see is from on top of my helmet, which offers greater visibility than at eye level. Measured from the bottom lip of my helmet to the center of the camera lens it's a whopping 8.5". Of course, my eyes aren't right at the bottom lip of my helmet, so we can comfortably 0.5-1" from there. That makes a noticeable difference in visibility.

JW Fas

1. You can legally pull past the line if you need the visibility, which I did.
2. Being further back would have been worse because the officer would have had more room to increase speed. You're also assuming he would have looked up, which is asinine. If he didn't have the sense to look where he was going in the first place, what makes you think an additional 19 feet would've changed that?

Paul Barnard

You are new to this forum. Some people have such a burning need to be right that they can't have a reasoned discussion. You'll find your efforts to get them to so much as thoughtfully entertain an opposing idea are in vain. I am anxious to see the photo.

wphamilton

I've been careful in this thread to say I have no intention to defend the cop, and you can say whatever you want about him. But it's ludicrous to say that being further out of his way, out of that particular line that he took in fact, would be just as dangerous because you assume that he would never look up at any time. You haven't done yourself any favors with your public quotes, when you were illegally positioned, in the most dangerous area possible without being actually in the cross-traffic.

cold turtle

If only we all had wphamilton's ability to see through trees with xray vision, we would be much safer on our bikes.

wphamilton

You can see through the imaginary trees as well!

wphamilton

I'm not arguing with the contributors I have in my ignore list. JoeyBike can speak for himself if he wants to argue with me.

Maelochs

At the speeds involved, even if Joe Fas had been at the stop line, if the officer had looked up at the point where the impact had actually occurred (we know he didn't lookup Prior to that, right?) then he wouldn't have had time to avoid the collision anyway.

Only one us us was there .... so we will never get an objective view. And we always look for ways that the rider could have acted differently---I think in part to preserve the illusion within each of our minds, "That wouldn't have happened to me." Fact is ... . cycling is a Really high-risk endeavor. Drivers only have to mess up for a fraction of a second to kill a cyclist. We all know this.

Anyone who has been rear-ended while at a dead stop in a perfectly legitimate situation---say, stopped at a light or in a line of stopped traffic---knows that sometimes drivers just drive right into you for no reason. We are All 100 percent vulnerable All the time. We have no protection and no defense. We play the odds every time we ride on the road.

This is even richer: we depend on all those distracted, frustrated, annoyed, selfish, ignorant motorists to protect our safety. No matter how hard we try or how carefully we ride, we still need them to act right or we are toast.

What happened here---it seems (none of us know (including the victim, who only has his own version of events---though it is better informed with real information than those of the rest of us)) is that we have a Driver Behaving Badly---the worst thing a cyclist can face.

There is literally nowhere on the road where a cyclist can be safe from such a driver.Drivers will cross lanes, drive head-on into oncoming traffic, drive off the near side of the road, drive across four lanes and off the far side of the road ..... there is Zero safe place to be if a driver is behaving badly. If you doubt that, Google "car hits house."

Whether we choose to admit it or not, whenever we ride with cars, we expect---we depend on---those drivers to operate in a fairly safe, predictable, law-abiding manner.

We can never tell when a driver will not do so---so no amount of preparation can make us safe.

I have had So many traffic encounters, i feel I have been beaten into learning how to be safe in traffic ... but I still have to admit, if the driver doesn't cooperate, there is nothing I can do.

And I think, if we can be honest with ourselves ....

You know, I would have pulled up to that intersection and Not stopped at the stop line ... I would have rolled very slowly forward until I had an absolutely clear view down both sides of the rad, farther than a car could travel in the time it would take me to turn. The "stop line" (or "stop bar") is an arbitrary marking for traffic control---not for cycling safety. (We had a similar debate when a driver blocked a sidewalk to make sure he could see oncoming traffic to pull out. It is the Only smart thing to do---if a driver or cyclist cannot see what's coming it is never safe to pull out.)

(And by the way, the Actual Victim here says he could not see. So anyone holding to a different point of view, who has not stood at that intersection within a few days of this incident occurring, is Full of Stuff. We have five-year-old Google maps ... and we have the person whose actual safety depended on being able to see. Anyone who wants to cross intersections based on five-year-old data, go for it. How many times until you get hit, by Currently traveling cars which aren't on the Google Map view, eh?)

I would have seen the approaching cop car and figured he was at least as aware as most drivers ... and would not have registered him as much of a threat as he was apparently staying safely within his lane. I would Not have predicted that he would suddenly make a highly illegal turn into the wrong lane for no necessary reason.

None of us would. Even the people who say they would not have passed the stop line before turning, would not have expected the cop to turn into the oncoming traffic lane---it they did, they wouldn't have stayed in the lane, they would have ridden off the road into the brush---and NO ONE has said they would have done that.

So basically, all of us would have been in the target area, and all of us would have expected the car to stay in its lane. People who don't want to admit that .... who cares what they think? Honest people are the only people worth having in a discussion anyway.

Basically None of us, even the most self-assured and self-righteous, would have predicted that the cop was about to turn into the wrong lane. All of us would have been in the line of fire.

The fact that the officer immediately admitted that he was totally at fault Should say a lot. Again, none of us can predict, or would have predicted in this case, when a driver is about tot totally contravene all the laws of legal and safe driving and aim right at a cyclist. When it happens, cyclists are defenseless. In this case the officer basically, though unintentionally, drove right into the cyclist without warning. It happens.

I think maybe some folks just like to argue, and some are unwilling (too afraid?) to admit that there are situations in which no rider could be safe. Whatever. I am not here to join the debate---so far, it has started nearly reasonably and gotten more silly with each few posts. I have been in enough of these cesspools not to need to swim in this one. I am just going to say my piece. People who realize whatever truth is in ti will acknowledge that--maybe only internally, and in great inner turmoil, but still .... others will continue to claim, "It could never happen to me!" That's cool. Hope it never does.

I was slammed from the rear while stopped in traffic once---in a car, thankfully. Another car hit me at probably 50-55 mph, unabated, while I sat in a long line of stopped cars. There was nothing I could have done to avoid the collision except not be on the road that day. And even there ... some people were trying to say "Well, if you had done this differently ... "

Sorry folks. Sometimes we just get hammered. Sometimes there is no way to avoid it. if that is too scary to admit, continue denying it ... I don't care.

Glad you weren't really hurt, Mr. Fas.

Post Script---to all the "He shouldn't have been there--I wouldn't have" folks. ..... I have had a chain snap while crossing an intersection. I was suddenly in the lane, without motive power. If JW Fas had dropped a chain, or had some other mechanical failure which required him to stop ----IN HIS OWN LANE---at what point would it be legal for any driver to hit him?

If you guessed "None," you win.

Even cars in the proper lane of travel are not allowed to drive into stopped vehicles---and are required by law to operate in such a fashion that they can avoid a collision with a stopped vehicle. Mr. Fas could Legally have been right in the middle of the road, and so long as he was in his own lane, there are Zero situations in which it would be okay for the cop to hit him ... and barely any Even If he had stopped directly in the cop's lane of travel.

So .... basically, the cop went out of his way to hit a cyclist who did nothing in any way wrong. And even the cop, who has everything to lose in this situation, was willing to admit that.

Some folks here could learn from that cop.

JoeyBike

I'm tearing up. You haven't blocked me!