squirtdad

in San Jose Ca there have been 2 cyclist deaths this year, both caused by collisions with other cyclists and in one case the cyclist causing the issue fled, making it a hit and run.





https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/06/...ee-bicyclists/

Iride01 

I don't know what the stats are today, but the incidence of bicycle and bicycle accidents ten or so years ago is not much lower than bicycle and moving motor vehicle accidents. I'd be surprised if in actuality bicycle on bicycle accidents are not more than with a motor vehicle.

Bicycle on bicycle accidents many times probably don't result in major injury or death so are very likely under reported.

The bad thing for motor vehicles is that because of the speed and other factors the result is often serious injury and occasional death. Also there is more impetus for any accident involving a motor vehicle to be reported to authorities, even by the driver themselves for both insurance and some state laws that strip you of your driving license if you don't.

Possibly even the authorities might not properly document bicycle on bicycle accidents all the time or in some jurisdictions.

For certain, hit and run of any sort is just low and despicable by most any possible excuse.

CB HI

My first thought, when I saw the collision occurred on Guadalupe River Trail was that Mr. Hit&Run was a homeless guy.
The north end of the trail is very nice but there are many homeless on portions of the trail. Poor bicycle maintenance and the downhill grade where the collision occurred is a likely factor.
The photo of Mr. Hit&Run looks like he has a flat front tire.

https://goo.gl/maps/d7GcXsyWHyQdayDo8


https://i0.wp.com/www.mercurynews.co...2C9999px&ssl=1

randallr

Couple of personal experience anecdotes on this:
1) A college student friend of ours was stepping off a bus in Boulder, a bike hit her, put her in the hospital with a long time healing after release. I think she got some help from his insurance.
2) I was riding a train a year ago and got to talking to another rider, he told me about how he got t-boned by another cyclist on a bike trail at an intersection with another bike trail. Hurt him bad, long recovery time.

indyfabz

Several years ago here in Philly a paralegal left work and was walking to the train. He was crossing the street legally when he was struck by a cyclist. He fell, hit his head, slipped into a coma and eventually died. Husband and father of a couple of kids. After the collision, the cyclist got up, straightened his bars and rode off. Despite a rather sizable reward offered by his employer, the cyclist has never been identified.

Miele Man

The ONLY time a bicycle of mine was damaged in a vehicular collision is when a wrong direction riding bicyclist exited a one-way street and rode at speed directly in front of me. I had no chance to stop before hitting him. He was knocked over, got up, got on his bike and took off. My front fork was pushed back to the point the front wheel hit the downtube when I tried to turn the wheel side to side. I was about 40 miles from home. I was fortunate in that I was able to turn the bike upside down, brace my feet on the bottom bracket and pull mightily on the front fork. I got it so that the wheel would pass the downtube. I very carefully rode tge bike home. Unfortunately just the cost of replacing the toptube and the downtube were more than the bike was worth. I loved the ride of that bike.

Cheers

bikecrate

I've mentioned before that I was hit by a wrong way cyclist coming around a blind corner on a park trail. It happened so fast neither one of us could hit the brakes. $300 damage to my bike and my left leg got a giant goose egg sore on it. Took about a month to recover. She was riding a heavy cruiser bike and sustained no damage to herself or bike.

Pratt

Not hit, but I had to brake to creeping speed when a peloton came out of a side road, blowing the stop sign and riding some on either side of the road; nobody said 'sorry'

Paul Barnard

Do those forks look bent backwards?

Ross520

They appear to installed the wrong way closer to the head tube, but the dropouts look like they're facing the correct direction.

I'm pretty sure this picture was taken right after the accident, so it's possible the fork was bent in the collision.
​​​​​​

livedarklions

Just out of curiosity, I just checked to see if bicyclists are covered by my state's hit and run law. It's extremely confusing because the law refers to "the driver of any vehicle", and bicycles are defined in another statute as being a "pedalled vehicle" That same statute also states that ""Driver" shall mean a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle as defined in RSA 259:60 or an OHRV or snowmobile." OHRV is Off Highway Recreational Vehicle, which is specifically defined to exclude bicycles and ebikes.

I'd say bicyclists are excluded even though the statute doesn't appear to be limited to motor vehicles, the word "driver" is.

Should I point this out to a state legislator? I don't see any good reason to exempt bicyclists.

Leisesturm

Typical 'echo chamber' hysteria building in this thread. Insurance companies are not likely to review their practices for collisions that, in the aggregate, pale into complete insignificance against their main interest: automobiles! How many cyclists after a collision with another person or cyclist are able to leave the scene? But, go ahead, get some steam up on the premise that bicycles are right up there with autos in the causing of pain and suffering to the general public. The response might not be what you expect. Cars are presumed to be mighty necessary. Worth the pain they cause. Bikes? Not so much. If we are as dangerous as is being made out here, wouldn't it just be easier to just ban bikes on streets and roads? Even trails? Especially trails. Bikes have no useful purpose on rail trails. Get rid of them. But do carry on. Just inserting some perspective.

livedarklions

Leave it to you to twist a reasonable discussion into some sort of "hysteria". The OP concerns an actual case where a cyclist ran off after killing someone with his bike. We know that's a rare occurrence, but the main reason for having a hit and run statute is to prevent people from leaving someone without aid after they hit them with their vehicle. This is exactly the same act whether it's a bike, a car, a motorcycle or a truck. So why should a bicycle rider be exempt from the penalties for acting in this manner AFTER the unlikely event occurred?

By your logic, since people rarely murder each other by forcing them to drink bleach, it shouldn't be illegal to force someone to drink bleach, forcing someone to drink bleach shouldn't be considered murder.

You have a very good argument against regulation of general applicability like requiring licenses and liability insurance for bicyclists, but since no one on this thread is proposing that, that's completely besides the point.



By your

Leisesturm

Because the cyclist is NOT exempt from far more robust laws that govern overall human behavior. No one is empowered to kill another person with impunity. Except automobile drivers actually. As long as they remain at the scene after a ̶k̶i̶l̶l̶i̶n̶g̶ accident, a driver, even if intoxicated, texting, whatever, is not actually guilty of murder. They are guilty only of whatever traffic statutes they may have violated. And we know this is true from the many, many stories linked here of drivers walking away from ... accidents, where cyclists died, with nary a blemish on their criminal record. It is left to the victims next of kin to mount some kind of Civil Action like a Wrongful Death Petition on their own dime if they want to get any justice for their loved one. A cyclist is no more free to kill another human being and run away, than anyone else. Isn't that enough?


That is not at all my logic. That is your interpretation. Your biased interpretation.

[QUOTE=livedarklions;21529642]You have a very good argument against regulation of general applicability like requiring licenses and liability insurance for bicyclists, but since no one on this thread is proposing that, that's completely besides the point.

It isn't beside the point because if you are going to drag cyclists into that class of road users liable for property and personal injury claims due to their unsafe operation of their vehicles, then cyclists MUST also be protected with the same liability insurance that other drivers MUST have, which necessitates an evaluation of the risk the underwriter is assuming which leads to road testing, licensing, etc. This is what comes from the decision to classify 30lb. commuter bicycles and their ilk the same as a Ford Fiesta or a Ford Escape for that matter. Whose bright idea was that? I get that most cyclists don't mind. It's like some kind of validation. I don't know if anyone has noticed but the roads are filling up with all kinds of non-automobile human traffic. A good rollerblader can maintain the same speed as an average cyclist. Unpowered skateboards on a downslope can easily match a fit cyclist and with less effort. Are these 'vehicles' too? Actually when I look over bicycle vehicle codes, I don't see that they are, in fact, classified the same as motor vehicles. Good places to operate a bicycle like Portland, OR recognize the differences between a bicycle and a car and this will only increase going forward.

livedarklions

File this under "Slippery Slope Argument, implausible."

The idea that imposing hit and run requirements on cyclists is going to mandate insurance is one of the stupidest assertions I've ever seen. As a matter of fact, your whole argument is self-contradictory. As you note, if you kill someone while negligently riding your bike, you are already just as liable as you would be if you were driving a car, yet somehow that hasn't led to mandatory insurance requirements, so it makes absolutely no sense that requiring a cyclist to remain at the site of an accident where he caused injury, death or some level of property damage would cause insurance requirements to be imposed.. Basically, you just have a big old clunky non sequitur up there that just proves the only hysterical postings on this thread are yours.

squirtdad

My point, which seems to have flown over was a) cyclists are not some sort of perfect unicorn creature incapable no wrong while drivers are invariable evil incarnate is not true. people are people In this case 2 cyclist deaths in the last 6 months caused by other cyclists and not cars , with one guilty party pulling a hit an run.

Leisesturm

All of us knew this already. Your point really wasn't worth the making in a cycling forum. That can be left to the cager forums wherever they are. That you could only find two examples of cyclist caused fatalities during a time period where at least 400 cyclists were killed due to some sort of automobile interference ... yah, your point was valid. Was it worth making here? Not for me to say, but I can provide the perspective I thought was missing as everyone started to pile on. Sadly, a majority of cyclists are really cagers at heart. Some of us really would rather be driving, but cannot, for one reason or another. The rest mostly do drive and when driving, or cycling for that matter, they judge cyclists behavior very harshly and scrutinize it much more than they do automobile drivers behavior. We have enough on our consciences with the scofflaw behavior we are well known for. Now you want to add cager style vehicular manslaughter and hit and run to that mix? Why? Why now?

livedarklions

Good lord, now you're pulling the "be politically correct" card!

A. Cyclists rarely kill people by hitting them with their bikes.

B. When they do kill people by hitting them with their bikes, they are even more rarely in any shape to flee the scene.

C. Lots of things that people rarely do are crimes.

D. In most states, the mens rea for criminally negligent homicide and vehicular manslaughter are pretty much identical. A bicyclist whose criminal negligence kills someone will be chargeable in pretty much any state for one or both of them under existing laws, so I have no idea where you're getting this "adding" crap from.

E. You still haven't given any reason why in the rare instance where a bicyclist injures another person, they should be have the right to flee the scene and leave the injured person to fend for themselves.

F, You're clearly hysterical, now accusing people of somehow being disloyal to cycling by even bringing up the subject.

Iride01 

While true that motor vehicles kill more cyclists than other cyclists do, there are about as many or more cyclist on cyclist accidents. As with motor vehicles, we can presume that for those that live, there is also bodily injury and property damage that needs to be addressed.

If I am unfortunate enough to be killed in an accident, whether with motor vehicle, bicycle or whomever, then I'd no longer care. But if I live, and I'm not at any fault, then I'd like some compensation for my injuries and property damage.

Recovery for damages though depends on various laws in your state and perhaps how tort liability and insurance requirements of your particular state.

And how is cyclist on cyclist accidents not a reasonable topic to discuss in a safety advocacy forum on a cycling website?