Yet another case of victim-blaming
#26
I'm good to go!
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 14,945
Bikes: Tarmac Disc Comp Di2 - 2020
Mentioned: 51 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6172 Post(s)
Liked 4,789 Times
in
3,305 Posts
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.
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.
Likes For Iride01:
#27
Has a bike
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!
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!
#28
For The Fun of It
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Louisissippi Coast
Posts: 5,845
Bikes: Lynskey GR300, Lynskey Backroad, Litespeed T6, Lynskey MT29, Burley Duet
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2134 Post(s)
Liked 1,643 Times
in
825 Posts
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.
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.
#29
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,530
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2112 Post(s)
Liked 663 Times
in
443 Posts
"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
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,530
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2112 Post(s)
Liked 663 Times
in
443 Posts
When I read these write ups, I try to put myself in the cyclist's shoes. In this case, there is no way I would have been hit by a turning truck at that intersection. Situational awareness would have told an alert rider that the truck was going slow. What are the reasons a truck would have been going slow right there?
Down in the comments, someone familiar with the area said that trucks take that nice wide corner fast. I can see a scenario where she was in the crosswalk and the truck turned behind her and just swung wide. But we won't know until the police release the report.
If you look at the photo, that is a very badly designed intersection; the wide corners invite drivers to take them at speed, and there's no kind of pedestrian refuge, just six lanes of cars waiting to run you over.
If you look at the photo, that is a very badly designed intersection; the wide corners invite drivers to take them at speed, and there's no kind of pedestrian refuge, just six lanes of cars waiting to run you over.
Explain the gravel spill:
-mr. bill
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Northampton, MA
Posts: 1,909
Bikes: 36" Unicycle, winter knock-around hybrid bike
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 930 Post(s)
Liked 393 Times
in
282 Posts
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)
Explain the gravel spill
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.
Last edited by UniChris; 03-16-21 at 04:59 PM.
#32
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,530
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2112 Post(s)
Liked 663 Times
in
443 Posts
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
Here's one of them:
-mr. bill
#33
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Northampton, MA
Posts: 1,909
Bikes: 36" Unicycle, winter knock-around hybrid bike
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 930 Post(s)
Liked 393 Times
in
282 Posts
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).
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).
Last edited by UniChris; 03-16-21 at 06:30 PM.
Likes For UniChris:
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,680
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 980 Post(s)
Liked 776 Times
in
402 Posts
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
#35
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,530
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2112 Post(s)
Liked 663 Times
in
443 Posts
[Rhetorical question]
-mr. bill
#36
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Northampton, MA
Posts: 1,909
Bikes: 36" Unicycle, winter knock-around hybrid bike
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 930 Post(s)
Liked 393 Times
in
282 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by UniChris; 03-17-21 at 10:34 AM.
Likes For UniChris:
#37
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,530
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2112 Post(s)
Liked 663 Times
in
443 Posts
"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
I'll take the INFORMED OPINION of an amateur first responder over a bunch of internut self-proclaimed "experts."
-mr. bill
#38
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Northampton, MA
Posts: 1,909
Bikes: 36" Unicycle, winter knock-around hybrid bike
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 930 Post(s)
Liked 393 Times
in
282 Posts
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.
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.
#39
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,680
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 980 Post(s)
Liked 776 Times
in
402 Posts
"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
I'll take the INFORMED OPINION of an amateur first responder over a bunch of internut self-proclaimed "experts."
-mr. bill
And of course you would ALWAYS REJECT the legitimately informed opinion of the PD.
Good, unbiased stuff
#40
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Northampton, MA
Posts: 1,909
Bikes: 36" Unicycle, winter knock-around hybrid bike
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 930 Post(s)
Liked 393 Times
in
282 Posts
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.
#41
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,680
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 980 Post(s)
Liked 776 Times
in
402 Posts
"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
I'll take the INFORMED OPINION of an amateur first responder over a bunch of internut self-proclaimed "experts."
-mr. bill
Out of curiosity, what exactly is an ‘amateur first responder’ and how did Jessica go from being a witness to a responder?
#42
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,680
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 980 Post(s)
Liked 776 Times
in
402 Posts
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.
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.
Especially in this instance.
I am just always baffled by so many pre-conceived notions either way.
#43
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Northampton, MA
Posts: 1,909
Bikes: 36" Unicycle, winter knock-around hybrid bike
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 930 Post(s)
Liked 393 Times
in
282 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by UniChris; 03-17-21 at 11:50 AM.
#44
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Northampton, MA
Posts: 1,909
Bikes: 36" Unicycle, winter knock-around hybrid bike
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 930 Post(s)
Liked 393 Times
in
282 Posts
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:
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.
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
"Boyle had a green light and the right of way when she was killed"
- 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
"She waited for her light to turn before starting across the crosswalk."
"Then, when she was almost halfway across the intersection, she’s hit and killed by a trucker who was trying to time the light and avoid coming to a stop,”
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:
Dave Campbell of Bike East Bay wants the intersection made safe, first with a clearly striped bike lane. “Do it and do it right away,” he said
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.
Last edited by UniChris; 03-18-21 at 08:21 PM.
Likes For UniChris:
Likes For Paul Barnard: