wphamilton

You haven't argued with me either but it would take more than than. My criteria are secret.

wphamilton

(Now, I have to entertain at least one argument from every non-blocked participant, to avoid any hurt feelings)

Since this is "Advocacy & Safety", can you explain why we take any safety measures at all, since "We are All 100 percent vulnerable All the time"?

Taking some responsibility for his own mistakes, I'd say so.

JoeyBike

This is Part 2 of my red light running secrets to success.

1. Look both ways before crossing the street - even a ONE WAY street.

2. If you CAN'T SEE, you can't go. And...

3. If you're NOT SURE, you can't go.

Some here will tell you that navigating stairways in your house is dangerous as well. I'm more of a "not be on the road that day" person myself. I have zero trust in other people. So far no problems on the stairs at home.

Maelochs

You figure that out. You are a smart lad.

As far as it goes ... I don't care what safety protocols we use ... there is nothing I can do while riding a bike which will stop a car. Cars weigh 3,000-6,000 pounds ... trucks, up to 84,000 pounds. Maybe if i get a MIPS helmet?

Nahhhhh ... sorry. I cannot stop a car or truck. And if a car is coming up behind me, even if the driver Wants to pass safely, I cannot control a sudden sneeze, an "important" text of phone call, the head falling off a cigarette into the driver's lap, a spilled beverage ... or a car in the other lane whose driver is distracted in some fashion, and crosses the center line.

Anyone who has been hit from behind with no warning understands that you can do All the right things and end up with the wrong outcome.

Again ... Google "car hits house."

if you have some secret which makes you capable of withstanding being hit by a car, please share that with everyone. if you have some secret method to make a car change its path of travel, or even stop, while riding your bicycle, share that, please.

If not ... we are completely vulnerable.

If the drivers of cars were (or felt) as vulnerable as cyclists, things would be a lot different.

IMO.

wphamilton

I can't figure it out at all, because the two ideas are mutually exclusive. Therefore, your idea requires further explication to have a discernible meaning.

In this case of OP, we have described a simple measure that would have in all likelihood prevented the collision, even with the inattentive driver. Stop at the stop line, or stay right if you move past it. You seem to be saying that the measure to improve your safety in this situation is irrelevant because you cannot prevent all possible dangerous outcomes.

Vulnerable means you are in danger from some event. 50% less likely for it to happen, means 50% less vulnerable. 100% vulnerable all the time means you're in the same danger, all the time.

I am presuming that you tend to ride on the right side of the road, don't dart out into heavy traffic, and so on, even though you are "100 percent vulnerable All the time". Why do you apply that precept to one situation and not the other situation?

Sorry I couldn't let this pass. I haven't been a "lad" for about 50 years, Son.
.

JoeyBike

So nice to just sit back and watch someone else "fight this battle" here.

(For the record, I don't want people to stop cycling because it's potentially deadly. I want people to THINK about the route they take, the time of day, the setting/rising sun, and that smashed deer they past two miles ago and take some action. Many folks here likely have wives, husbands, kids, grandkids and others who love them. It's a shame when "we" get removed from this Earth before our time. THINK about what the real world is like, BELIEVE that you could be injured badly or killed, then TAKE ACTION to minimize the risk. For me this required giving up recreational cycling altogether. For others I am sure it won't be so drastic. Others will stay in denial.)

Paul Barnard

Joey, when I recover from my shoulder surgery you need to do my early morning ride with me. it is remarkably tame compared to what I have seen you ride. I have never had anything that remotely resembled a close call. On very rare occasion, i encounter someone who is rude. I have a fairly high risk aversion, but this ride isn't bad at all.

JW Fas

The screenshot below was taken from additional footage following the initial collision. Here I'm standing on the far left side of the road at the stop line with the two highway patrolmen facing south. Note how the visibility is absolute garbage. Now imagine how much worse it'd be standing on the right side of the road (think back to your geometry class) with my eye level 9-9.5" lower than the camera lens and my body actually being about three feet behind the line (when you account for the fact my front wheel would be at the line).

"Pretty clear" my a$$.

mr_bill

Hope you fall in love with your new Giant.

And in case it’s not clear, note the royal “we.”

-mr. bill

wphamilton

Still looks pretty clear to me, and it would be no worse on the right side of the road.

JW Fas

At this point you have to be trolling. You cannot be serious given the hard evidence showing you're wrong.

Maelochs

I cannot tell, having never been there ... something others who have not been there, apparently can do ... but it looks to me that if i were behind the stop line in the right lane, i would be looking at the bank and trying to pick out oncoming cars between gaps in the guardrail ... which to me, is a very unsafe thing to do.

Given that i would just as likely (it seems to me) have gotten hit behind the stop line, or when rolling forward as the OP did ... and because pulling out without being able to see clearly would be unsafe (IMO) .... pulling out would be a lot safer most of the time because I could clearly see both ways down the road ... I Always opt for a clear field of vision.

Just being on the road is a gamble ... as 40,000 dead Americans won't be able to tell you each year. But entering an intersection because "I think it might be safe" is a mistake I have learned not to make.

As I said above, we Always expect other drivers to behave rationally and logically, if not attentively. We don't expect them to Try to hit us ... though maybe they don't notice us, or don't quite leave enough room ... but if we really believed drivers Wanted to hit us, cycling would be impossible. Therefore we tend to think that if we stay in our lane, a car won't come into that lane illegally and hit us out of pure stupidity. Again, if we didn't think that ... we simply couldn't ride on the road if there was a car within 50 feet (half a second a traffic speed, which is about a human's reaction time.)

I don't expect to convince anyone. I do know that, based on the photos only,I believe I would have pulled forward until I could see clearly down the road each way, for far enough that a car couldn't reach me before I made my maneuver.

It is Always a gamble---but in my experience, looking where I plan to go and making sure I can see clearly pays off almost every time, and cars coming into my lane and hitting me so far has been exceedingly rare. We play the odds, and in my experience, the odds of being hit or nearly hit by pulling blind into an intersection are worse than the odds that someone will simply forget he or she is driving and run me over (though, as I noted above, that actually has happened to me.)

This edges into the same territory we approach when discussing "taking the lane." My response is the same---we all have tens of years and tens of thousands of miles of cycling behind us, and we are all still alive. We have all learned different survival techniques, and they have all been validated by the fact that we have all survived. Pretending there is only one way is foolish IMO.

I would have pulled up until I could see. Even after reading this whole thread, that is what I would do ... and will do the next time I am out on my bike. Everyone's mileage will vary.

wphamilton

I'm being objective. It's true that I haven't physically been there, but neither do I have an emotional investment to support some of the things said in the media. I'm not surprised that you want to get personal with me, because you've already shown your inclinations with public statements about the other party.

JW Fas

Quit deflecting. Show the EVIDENCE you're right. So far I've shown you're wrong unless, of course, you care to be an adult and demonstrate otherwise.

wphamilton

Your photo is little different than the several I already posted, ALL showing that the line of sight is clear enough to see approaching vehicles from the right. You dropped into this thread to "show everybody" how wrong they are, name-calling those who don't agree with you, and you've failed to demonstrate anything other than an inability to discuss something in a civil manner.

Here are the facts: the cop was driving inattentively. You failed to stop where legally required, and then incautiously placed yourself where an inattentive driver would naturally drive during that turn. You HAVE said, in published reports, that you did everything perfectly and legally, and that the cop was an idiot who was 100% at fault. I'm sorry but the facts falsify your narrative. No amount of name-calling on your part can alter those facts.

Flip Flop Rider

the defense calls wphamilton!

Maelochs

This is nonsense. There is no way to know where an "inattentive driver" would drive. if the path of distracted drivers was predictable, they wouldn't be a threat.

Also, as some folks have ignored repeatedly ... there is no way to predict when a driver will decide to completely ignore the rules of the road, and no safe place once a driver does that. You can literally be in your living room and you are not safe from inattentive drivers.

There is no way to tell When a driver is going to drive in an irrational fashion ... and All of us assume that drivers mostly will not. otherwise we simply could not ride when there were cars around. please do really think about it ... not to find a way to be :"right" but to try to figure out what i am saying. I might not be a s smart as you, but i am not stupid, and your continually acting like everybody else must be stupid because they disagree with you ... well, the common factor in all those relationships ... Someone is refusing to think outside his own box.

Whatever.

It is time for me to take a break form this thread. it is no longer an investigation of an accident and the surrounding factors, and is now an ego battle between people trying to "win the internet." Everyone who plays that game loses.

Please, keep your future responses entertaining.

wphamilton

No worries, I won't be presenting arguments to you henceforth. You can add something else insulting if you want , I don't care.

Paul Barnard

How could you possibly be right? You were there after all. I am going to trust the read of a forum blowhard before I believe you

JW Fas

Had I done something dangerous or illegal, shouldn't that have been reflected in the highway patrol's final report? Shouldn't I have been ticketed for breaking a law since there was such clear video evidence? Curious how neither were the case...

1. The physical evidence disagrees with you.
2. My experience riding this route many times disagrees with you.
3. Even the experts in traffic collisions (highway patrol) disagree with you.

But nope, you're the one who is right despite a clear lack of evidence and sound reasoning to support your position.

You would win the gold medal for the mental gymnastics competition.

BillyD

This old thread has run it's course, now it's just circling the toilet.