UniChris

Once upon a time in a land a few days ride away a young and then inexperienced driver saw the car in front slow and pull right towards the shoulder of a major but not particularly wide rural road. During this driver's own recent education, he was occasionally encouraged to do that to let following cars pass. And so he prepared to to pass. Imagine his surprise when that car then hooked an extreme-angle left turn into a retrograde driveway! Fortunately, in that case there was still time to stop.

UniChris

The original story, based on the driver's account only, alleged the cyclist had turned across the travel lane from the right shoulder.

The revised police conclusion was apparently based on some physical evidence as well as the interview with the recovering cyclist. M y guess would be that this was some indication that the initial impact was closer to the centerline or even in the opposite lane.

wphamilton

That was the indication to me! Based on the opening paragraph, which cited the police report. Just apply basic physical mechanics and place the bicyclist where she said she was, and the police interpretation was obviously wrong. Even if she swerved all the way from the right, it still doesn't work for the driver's story.

The example, I'm sure, was chosen because it IS obvious and illustrates the possibly subconscious bias against cyclists that they were looking at. I'm really surprised that cyclists are arguing about it here, let alone calling it speculative.

mr_bill

You all don't have to guess. It's REPORTED by 303cycling:

-mr. bill

CliffordK

As far as "Accident", I don't object to the language. As, it carries the weight of an occurrence without intent to harm. One can read more into it if one wishes.
Step or not, somehow she missed a big SUV bearing down on her. And, 50+ MPH or not, she should have been able to judge if she could get through her turn before the vehicle approached.

About 2 years ago, I had a near-death event on a 4 lane, 50+ MPH highway.

Left turn from shoulder across the highway.

Traffic was heavy enough that it was tough to find a hole to get all the way across. So, I saw an opening. A vehicle in the right lane, left lane clear. So, I attempted to move across to the left lane. Except, the dang car in the right lane must have seen my intent to turn, and rather than slowing slightly, simply moved into the left lane and blasted the horn, all at about 70 MPH.

I felt fortunate that I looked about THREE times.

Since then, I've avoided that section of the route, and generally cross that road at a traffic light about 5 miles to the East.

Oh, I had one a couple of days ago. I was at a stop sign doing a left turn. So, the car pulled up next to me and nearly slammed into a pickup turning in.

I think that is the bigger issue here. People view a cyclist as something that they must pass at all costs, and a 5 second delay to wait their turn is unacceptable.

In the incident in the article, the SUV had seen the cyclist, and attempted to pass her, going into the same place she was heading. Same as almost happened to me.

Obviously the helmet won't save everyone every time. But, one can at least attempt to reduce the likelihood of mortality. Forensics can help determine if the accident was survivable or not... such as truck rear tires, not survivable.

As far as bright clothing. Yes and no. Every little bit helps. And, it is something that we can do as cyclists to improve our chances just a little.

The British have a good term for it: SMIDSY Accident "Sorry Mate, I Didn't See You".

Maximize one's visibility... still there is the sorry, I just didn't care accidents, but be seen early, and perhaps give the driver that extra second to process one's existence and how to react.

MoAlpha

Not all of them, fortunately, but a scary minority.

CliffordK

https://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-...l#post20910745

Totalling a Mercedes + a Caddy + a trip to the hospital + killing 3 people... all to get around a cyclist.

Those cyclists are evil road obstructions.

Maelochs

This is the crazy perception some drivers do seem to have. Racing bikes to stop signs, traffic lights .... risking collisions with other cars to pass a cyclist rather than spend another 20 seconds at 15 mph.

First, there is zero proof that helmets help in car/bike collisions ... everybody acts like it is obvious ... like it is "obvious" that the Earth is flat.

Second, you seem to miss the point---whether or not the cyclist was wearing a helmet is IRRELEVANT, because the cyclist was hit by the car. Wearing a helmet would not have Prevented the Collision. But to mention whether the rider was wearing a helmet tends to shift Responsibility for the Collision to the cyclist. And unless you wear football shoulder pads, knee-pads, elbow pads, and wrist guards ... you aren't trying.

In fact, why not require all bicyclists to wear motorcycle helmets? We know there would be a greater survival rate, right? If you want to play that game, I will play harder. If cyclists need to wear helmets, forget these cheesy dixie-cups-inside-solo-cups crap. Most cycling helmets are useless at speeds of over 15 mph, and most of us ride faster than that. Get serious or drop the whole topic.

I don't have much respect for the call for hi-viz clothing either. Look, I have seen and avoided pedestrians and ninja cyclists at night while driving ... I have this thing called "Headlights" on my car. And during the day ... I can see someone wearing black, yellow, orange, whatever .... because I have Eyes, and I use them.

People who didn't see the cyclist weren't looking.

I am sure we all have similar experiences---many, many years ago I was driving (a rare experience back in the day) and was waiting in a side street to pull onto a busy road. I kept watching back to my left for cars ... and seeing cars, cars, more cars ... and finally I saw No car. I almost hit the gas before I realized I was looking at an approaching semi-trailer.

People look right past bikes ... and people look right past motorcycles (ask a buddy who rides one.) And as for Hi-Viz, most motorcycle headlights are brighter than car headlights. I don't think your danger-orange vest is beating out a 2000-candlepower beam in terms of being eye-catching... but people look right past motorcycles.

As i have mentioned elsewhere ... sometimes "I didn't see you" means "I wasn't paying attention." More often it means, "I am lying so I don't get screwed for hitting you." As in this case, the driver will not hesitate to lie to try to avoid responsibility.

But in both cases, hi-viz and helmets, the point (pehaps the article was not clear) is that by mentioning either of these things, a perception that the cyclist was not doing everything possible to avoid the contact is created.

To understand better, shift the argument to cars.

Would you consider it fair or even pertinent if one driver t-boned a car in an intersection, crippling a mother and three children, and the article mentions that none of the kids were wearing crash helmets?

If the car wasn't painted in hi-viz fluorescent paint with broad reflective stripes, would that in some way absolve the other driver of responsibility?

Have you Ever seen in a description of an auto accident any mention of whether the driver was wearing a helmet or whether the car was painted in hi-viz?


With car wrecks, the focus is entirely on who drove wrong ... nobody asks what color the cars were, what the occupants were wearing ... and the driver who caused the accident doesn't get a break if the occupants of the car he hit weren't wearing seat belts. That is properly understood as a separate issue.

THAT is what the initial article was about---how in Bicycle collisions, there irrelevant factors are brought up in a way which seems to excuse the driver's errors.

Just so that is clear.

CliffordK

What if the car driver didn't turn on the lights, or didn't have functioning lights at night?

I suppose it would be hard to tell the condition of the lights after an accident, but I find cars with a single headlight to be extremely difficult to accurately gauge road position, or whether they are a car or a motorcycle.

I believe the laws require all modern cars to have rear and side reflectors.

UniChris

I just about laughed my head off the time one of those early 2000-era GM electric cars just had to beat me down a short block to the red light.

That said, something I remember being very conflicted by when encountering multiple cyclists on the winding roads of the drive to a former workplace, was the feeling that even if I were willing to be patient and wait for a really good opportunity, the cars behind me were not.

And in factual support of that, there was a school zone on that drive where it became a real art to pick a speed which honored the intent of the sign, but was till fast enough not to cause whoever was following behind to pull out into the opposing lane and blindly pass at twice the limit.

Maelochs

Hardly the same situation .... and all the hi-viz and reflective material wouldn't help. If the car has no lights at night it wouldn't see reflective, high-contrast, or fluorescent materials.

Day or night, lights or not, if the driver just plain isn't looking, s/he won't see the rider.

But if you are going to posit a ninja car, why not posit a ninja car with a drunk driver whose mother was killed by a guy who rode a bicycle which looked just like yours ... ???? maybe not being seen would be a blessing.

Anyway, as I noted ... the point of the article wasn't that riders should or should not wear helmets or hi-viz. The point is that mentioning either weighs opinion against the rider, as if to make the victim less of a victim.

Think it through .... If you are driving and hit a pedestrian who is walking in the bike lane, is it okay because the pedestrian was not wearing a helmet or high-viz? Is the penalty lower? If the pedestrian was crossing the road in a crosswalk but not wearing a helmet, is it okay to hit him or her? If a mother doesn't have reflectors on her baby carriage, is she fair game?

Some people think high-viz clothing matters .... but no one knows how much, as cyclists in high-viz, using full lights and reflectors, get hit both day and night. (See the above note about motorcycles getting overlooked.) And a lot of states have made motorcycle helmets optional if the rider lays down a big deposit with the insurance company .... and I haven't heard where accidents have spiked .... because helmets do not prevent collisions.

People who choose to should wear high-viz and helmets, for whatever reasons they choose. I rarely wear a helmet of high-viz and I don't get hit .... I have been hit a few times in the past several decades, but never because of my clothing. But all cyclists should be free to dress however. No debate there.

Drivers should not be free to hit cyclists who choose not to wear high-viz or helmets. That was pretty much what the article said, at least .... and implying that cyclists not wearing high-viz or helmets were somehow "asking for it" is wrong.

Does anyone here disagree? Should riders not wearing helmets be fair game for drivers? Should anyone on the road not wearing a high-viz vest be considered a target?

Lemond1985

Yes, especially if they dress provocatively in short shorts, colorful clip-in shoes, and low-cut cycling jerseys, they's askin' for it.

Daniel4

More of the same.
I read some victim blaming too. Looked back once? Looked back twice? How many time do you ned to look back before you're sure all is clear?

Did the F-150 appear out of nowhere? Possibly. Just as cyclists seem to appear out of nowhere when motorists say " But I didn't even see him." Or when you're driving, check your blind spot, change lanes and then suddenly see a car right behind you and you wonder how he got there suddenly.

The language of crash vs accident has been discussed since 2004 as far as I know. We don't call airline crashes or train derailments accidents. There's always an investigation. There are no auto accidents. They are due to negligence. All motorists who hold valid licences have gone through proper driver training and road tests and would have been taught to expect the unexpected when driving. And all cyclists who hold drivers licences would have done the same. Why are their so many excuses for bad driving as an acceptable norm?

livedarklions

Ahem--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...%80%93present)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviati..._and_incidents

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/f...fense-gun-use/

Multiple examples of the word "accident" being used in ways you say "we" don't. "Accidents" is actually a term of art in describing aviation mishaps.

Such linguistic nonsense--"accident" and "caused by negligence" are no more mutually exclusive than "crashes" and "caused by negligence".

MoAlpha

When I started training in neurology, back in the 80s, people were calling strokes "cerebrovascular accidents," maybe because they seemed inevitable and adding more syllables and jargoning it up softened the reality. By the time I finished, we were back to "stroke," which is kind of like "crash."

livedarklions

The problem I have with "crash" is I think it's a poor description of a lot of accidents. For example, I was knocked down by a car last year, but I really wasn't "crashed" into . The car took an unsignalled right turn as I was passing it on the right, which basically sideswiped me. As best as I recall, only my body actually made contact with the car, and while it hurt a lot, it was only hard enough to cause some bruising and soreness. I was hurt at least as much by hitting the ground.

Medical terminology can get really weird. "Heart attack" is a very strange phrase, for example. Is the heart under attack (and who is the attacker) or is the heart attacking the patient? "Seizure" is another strange one- nothing is being taken or actually seizing up. For that matter, "stroke" doesn't seem to have much if anything to do with the non-medical uses of the word.

Rollfast

A: She was in front of a brand new F-150.

If she had enough time to recognize it as new then she wasn't paying enough attention to anything else, and should had entered that street another way.

A2: Don't mess with cars. They'll take your cateye marbles anyway. Likewise don't try to beat a train (or that drawbridge, if you remember that one).

livedarklions

That's just dumb. You understand that the vehicle literally made a big impression on her? It doesn't say WHEN she noted that it was "brand new", does it?

Since she didn't lose consciousness, she had plenty of time to appraise the vehicle AFTER she was hit.

And how does her paying too much attention to the vehicle that hit her lead to that vehicle hitting her? That's not even logical.

Maelochs

Hmmm ....."entered the street"/ What does that mean? She was in the middle of the lane and a guy in a truck came up behind her, ignored her signals, and hit her while she was in the oncoming traffic lane? What doe entering a road have to do with any of that?

Sorry folks, but in this situation the Driver of the truck is at fault. if taking the lane and signally in advance of your maneuver are not sufficient to provide safety, nothing is. It is not possibly to ride forward safely while looking backward. At some point one has to assume other road users are sane and rational.

None of us can say how long or how often the lady signaled, or how long before she made her turn, not how long she was in the middle of the lane ... she could have signaled while on the far right, while the driver was deciding to pass, then taken the lane and signaled a turn, or not, while the driver decided to continue to pass, using the oncoming lane. We don't know if the driver sped up to pass or slowed when he saw a cyclist. We can make up stuff to support our points of view, but that is adding BS to BS. So we have no real idea if there was anything this rider could have done to prevent the collision besides staying home that day.

Everyone insinuating having knowledge of any sort is lying or fantasizing or imaging or whatever ... but none of us know.

Daniel4

Yup, more victim-blaming and defence of negligent driving.

forresterace

I'm amazed that, so far, nobody has mentioned that if the cyclist had started her signaled left turn, she must have been in the intersection. Therefore, if the truck hit her in the opposite lane, he attempted to pass in
the intersection. I am under the impression that passing, using the opposite lane, in an intersection is illegal. Is that not the case?

Maelochs

The Google Maps view shows a cyclist…. Excellent. (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1524...7i13312!8i6656)

It is a T intersection. He might have been passing her in the few yards before the intersection, but likely she would have started her turn near the right (near) lane of 65th.

So ... Apparently, in Colorado, passing within 100 feet of an intersection is against the law:
(https://advance.lexis.com/documentpa...a-234e8b8d85ca)

42-4-1005. Limitations on overtaking on the left

(2) No vehicle shall be driven on the left side of the roadway under the following conditions:

• (b) When approaching within one hundred feet of or traversing any intersection or railroad grade crossing; or (etc.)

Unless .... overtaking a cyclist:

(4) The provisions of this section shall not apply:

• (d) To the driver of a vehicle passing a bicyclist moving the same direction and in the same lane when such movement can be made in safety and without interfering with, impeding, or endangering other traffic lawfully using the highway.

Rollfast

Careful, this'll end up in P&R soon

GailT

Here's an update:

If she had died, he never would have been charged, as happened in similar case at the same intersection a year earlier:

I'm always amazed at how many BF members tend to blame the cyclist.

Rollfast

PS The answer is that she did not either wait to see if the driver could see her or yield to the vehicle. Also if she was using the turn refuge with auto traffic it's a stinky idea and I nearly got a ticket for it once.

For the reason that she got hit.

Case closed.