Iride01 

I really tire of this "victim blaming" claim many make when others try to determine what might have contributed to an accident. If one rejects discovery and discussion of what everyone involved, including the victim did, didn't do or may have done differently then we won't learn anything.

I don't see the discussions as blaming the victim. Blame and responsibility will be determined by the laws of the state involved, insurance and maybe even the courts.

If we can't discuss what might have been done differently, even if that includes the victim, then we are doomed.

russell1010

It's an accident and that write up was nothing but someone's opinion. This quote "The driver’s admission that he didn’t even know he hit her is a confession of inattention and negligence" made my brain hurt. There's a popular meme based on a commercial "That's not how this works" applies to the whole article.

Also if you're riding or walking down the sidewalk you should look for vehicles before crossing an intersection. How did she not notice a huge truck? I'm not saying drivers don't need to pay more attention because because they do. I've almost been ran over a few times. As a cyclist we must also pay attention and never assume what another driver will do. Be safe and considerate of others out there. Don't drive or ride with anger thinking you own the road!

Paul Barnard

Your thoughts mirror mine. If y'all ever read of my demise, please discuss what you think I could have done better.

mr_bill

"And I can find neither party 'at fault'."
"She did everything right."
"I agree the police were wrong to blame Christine."

Think about it for a bit.... [Helpful hint - you don't know what happened.]

-mr. bill

mr_bill

Why would ANYONE local have knowledge that you don't have?

Explain the gravel spill:



-mr. bill

UniChris

None of what you quoted is or even could be be a statement of observation by a witness: nevermind that it seems to come from other people, your quotes are all interpretive opinions, and not observations.

When you're reviewed what the witness actually said about what they observed, you might have some clue what you are talking about.

Until then you are speaking in ignorance - unlike those who actually did pay attention to what the witness reported.

(And note that as the driver's story amounts to "what cyclist?" the un-involved witness is actually the only report)


First understand that you're looking at at least three distinct images stitched together by software (the other day I was looking at railroad tracks "broken" in the middle of a road crossing, even though I know they're not); then note on your next ride how road grit tends to form patterns at intersections based on where vehicles go.

mr_bill

There are four witnesses. One we can't interview. One might be lying, because.... Then there are two independent witnesses.

Here's one of them:



-mr. bill

UniChris

There's no observation of what happened in that quote either - at most there's a mention of some complicating circumstances, but there is no information in your quote about the actual interaction of the truck and cyclist.

As such it would seem you either do not understand, or perhaps simply do not care, about the difference between an observation and an opinion.

There is, however an actual observation of the nature of the collision itself (heavily covered earlier in the thread).

downhillmaster

Good stuff.
She did everything right because a witness said so?
What an amazing coincidence that the witness happened to be an accredited expert in the field of traffic safety as it pertains to bicycles in intersections

mr_bill

Which of you who DID NOT WITNESS THE CRASH, NOT ACCIDENT are an "accredited expert expert in the field of traffic safety as it pertains to bicycles in intersections?"

[Rhetorical question]

-mr. bill

UniChris

You are exhibiting a fundamental failure of logic.

The role of a witness is to state what they observed. It is not to give interpretive opinions.

Based on the observations reported by witnesses, it is then possible to have a meaningful debate about how those should be interpreted.

The comments of a streetsblog poster who gives their interpretive opinion but neglects to state what they saw are meaningless.

"A did everything right" is meaningless

"A did X" would be something we can work with, by considering action X in the context of applicable laws, physics, and yes, political priorities. We can link to actual sections of vehicle codes, explain what is and is not visible from a particular position, etc - those aspects are testable.

But an opinion offered without mention of the facts on which it is based is utterly worthless.

mr_bill

"The niece [of Christine Boyle, Barbara Gibbens] said the family was especially grateful for the support provided by bystander Jessica Benavidez, who stayed with Boyle at the scene until first responders arrived."

I'll take the INFORMED OPINION of an amateur first responder over a bunch of internut self-proclaimed "experts."

-mr. bill

UniChris

When caught in an error of logic, double down on it!

Not until you can understand the distinction between an observation and an opinion will you have anything useful to contribute to this thread or the subject or rider safety overall.

downhillmaster

Of course you would.
And of course you would ALWAYS REJECT the legitimately informed opinion of the PD.
Good, unbiased stuff

UniChris

Police department conclusions (or even "factual" reporting) in cyclist-involved situations have a fairly earned degree of uncertainty.

But the key principle holds:

Witnesses state what they (think) they saw

Then various (potentially competing) interpretations of those observations can be argued, justified, refuted, etc.

Skipping past the observation to an interpretive opinion isn't valid - no matter who is doing it.

downhillmaster

Btw, I read the article and see no mention of Jessica being a first responder of any type. I do see her referenced being traumatized though.
Out of curiosity, what exactly is an ‘amateur first responder’ and how did Jessica go from being a witness to a responder?

downhillmaster

FWIW, I am certainly not inclined to simply leave it in the hands of the police.
Especially in this instance.
I am just always baffled by so many pre-conceived notions either way.

UniChris

At then end of the day, beyond this particularly tragedy, what I'm most concerned about is the possibility that many cyclist may have a dangerous misunderstanding of what the "walk" light where a California MUP crosses a road alongside an intersection actually means.

In particular, unlike for a pedestrian California law does not grant a cyclist with the walk light the right of way over a driver making a legal turn. It cannot be stressed enough that the walk light of a MUP's crossing is not the same as the green light of a through traffic lane, yet many riding up to the intersection will treat it as such.

I believe that in most states the law does (or really should) prohibit drivers from running into pedestrians, cyclists, animals, or disabled vehicles that were already blocking their target lane.

And in most states the law does (or really should) prohibit drivers from turning across the path of a cyclist riding on the road in a through lane, who they have just passed.

But cyclists who want to ride from a MUP or sidewalk into a crosswalk across which turns are possible need to keep in mind the typical aspect of crosswalk law which prohibits even a pedestrian from "suddenly" entering the crossing: even a pedestrian due the right of way can't practically enjoy it unless they give approaching drivers reasonable time to yield.

In conclusion, I worry about drivers who don't look where they are going and so hit people with the front of their vehicles, and I worry about cyclists who think they have the right of way where they don't.

UniChris

Streetsblog has a new article on this, alas it muddies the waters and seems to continue some misconceptions rather than be clarifying.

It would seem that there is a video, but they're not allowed to share it. They also neglect to state what it actually shows in terms of the directions of the crash itself.

On an unclear basis, streetsblog is claiming that but that claim has several problems:

• the "green" light is not the crossing light, so it would not apply unless the cyclist were riding in a through lane of the road
• if the light was green then it was green for the truck, too
• even if what they actually meant was the pedestrian "walk" light, and that light allowed crossing, it would still not grant a cyclist (as opposed to pedestrian) the right of way in terms of priority to enter the intersection if the vehicular light were also green

The cyclist's family's attorney claims

Which is certainly important - but the critical safety lesson from all of this, is that waiting for the light alone is not sufficient, because while riding through that crossing is apparently legal, the walk light does not actually grant a cyclist the right of way

It's unclear what "timing the light" means: was the truck rolling slowly up to the light hoping it would turn, the way a cyclist does? If the cyclist was waiting for the light, did she manage to get halfway across during a leading pedestrian interval (if present) before the truck turned?

There's a lot of speculation about if the truck driver could have seen the cyclist waiting for the crossing light; but if the truck driver had a timing opportunity to see the cyclist still waiting, then the cyclist presumably also had an opportunity to see the truck. And in a simultaneous case, a cyclist wanting to use a crossing is actually not the one with the right of way under California law.

It's certainly still possible the truck ran squarely into the side of the cyclist, but that would be inconsistent with the existing witness report that the cyclist was trying to push off the truck to avoid going under it, something implying a lower speed or glancing collisions such as the cyclist riding into the side of the truck. There are people who have seen the video, but they're not sharing the one piece of information which would actually be key, which is the geometry of the actual crash.

Streetsblog then goes on to show a picture of a different truck apparently making a no-stop right on red. However they neglect to mention is that in their picture, the pedestrian crossing light is also red. Drivers shouldn't make a right on red without actually stopping, but ironically it's legal to make a right on red during the T-road's light phase and the opposing traffic's protected left turn phase, but it's not legal to use the pedestrian crossing during either of those.

And then they have this:

What Mr. Cambell seems to forget but that California figured out long ago is that a through bike lane has to be to the left of a right turn lane. If it's not going to formally make that position swap, then it has to dissapear so that cyclists and drivers can do it on their own. There appears to be a bike lane both preceding and following the intersection; they could stripe one through in the proper position to the left of the turn (back up Stanley to the west they've done exactly that), but those comfortable road riding to a sufficient degree to use that are already allowed to make such a movement in the intersection.

If they want to fully de-conflict the trail and the intersection, they should move the trail's crossing halfway down the loop road and make it a unique traffic light. That's where the trail ultimately goes anyway, only those willing to road / on-street-lane ride on Stanely can actually continue east beyond the intersection.

Paul Barnard

Green doesn't mean go.

mr_bill

Exactly! Green does NOT mean you can blindly turn right without checking if there is anyone in the crosswalk.

Oh, wait, that's not what you meant, is it?

-mr. bill