GhostRider62

Of course the driver is to fault and to blame.

The shoulder is really small there. I usually use Google maps to look at routes and it seems their algorithm removes the rumble strip. You can see it briefly when scrolling forward but one you stop, it goes away. Determine risk levels is a personal choice. We will never be perfectly safe from motorists mowing us down. Personally, I would never ever take that lane.

StanSeven

Moderation note: a post with offensive language was removed. Let’s keep discussions civil please.

work4bike

This maybe the exact same bridge in this video starting at ~2:12-minute point. Video is from about 7-years ago.

JoeyBike

Most people look at automobiles as things with brains inside. I look at them as autonomous inanimate objects. Like rocks.

Imagine a seasoned rock climber on a sheer cliff face. A rock crumbles in his hand and he/she takes a nice fall, saved by their rope. Does the rock climber CURSE the rock for crumbling? Likely so. Does the rock climber BLAME the rock for crumbling? I doubt it. Whose fault is is that the rock climber TOOK THE RISK knowing full well that rocks sometimes crumble? Is the ROCK to blame? Nope. It's the climbers CHOICE to be there in a possible "unstable" situation.

Some here assume that humans are perfect (or should be perfect) when in fact the human race is quite flawed. Distractions, alcohol, substance abuse, drowsiness, unawareness, impatience, and last of all a lack of skill and ability to focus. Sure the "operator" of a motor vehicle assumes legal fault in a crash when our laws show them to be to blame, and rightly so. But we, as road cyclists, chose to grab the rock time and time again knowing full well, as evidenced in Advocacy and Safety time and time again, that rocks sometimes crumble and motorists often make mistakes.

Two people are no longer with us but WE are still here and capable of making SMART choices. Be smart people. Just because it is legal to ride a certain highway doesn't mean we SHOULD. Check the time of day for rush hour traffic, where the sun will be located, how are the sight lines, is there room for error, or maybe *gasp* don't ride that road. YOU still have a choice. Many do not. Rocks do what rocks do as do motorists. Don't blame the rock. Don't get dead.

Paul Barnard

Most people that I know look at autos as things with idiots inside.

Corrections made, but thanks for trotting out your tired comment that there are risks in cycling. The are risks in driving, walking, going up and down stairs and getting into the bathtub too. Do you have a point beyond "bicycling has risks?" I'll remind you again and as often as necessary that stating the obvious adds no value. It could be argued that it is a distraction that is counter-productive. Frankly, I find it a little disappointing that in the most heavily moderated forum in which I participate, that the moderators allow a non-cyclist continue to be a distraction.

Paul Barnard

Is trolling considered civil?

UniChris

While it's quite likely there was not a single cyclist in common between the video of a B group on a Saturday morning years ago, and yesterday's Saturday morning ride of an unknown division, I do find two aspects of it interesting.

1. In the entire bridge crossing, the group is passed by only a single vehicle
2. That driver finds it appropriate to leave most or all of the left lane as a buffer and pass largely using the median

Since that was a different situation it cannot remotely lead to any conclusions, but it may help inform the thinking of those unfamiliar with the sorts of situations that can be found by cyclists there

GamblerGORD53

Latest news is one of the deceased is a woman. They were going South.

Here's a real good video from just 2 years ago. Screen shows all the live strava data. The poster was up to 600W and 40 mph down a hill. I don't know how they avg 25 mph so easily. Most of the pavement was very good. There is a decent bike lane most of the way, so the rider on the right uses it half the time. They seem to rotate to the front on the right. WTH. This group looked coordinated, well behaved and mostly staying away from the center lines. Very light traffic because the route goes to the end of the city. Strange that this ride in the video is only 20 or 25 miles.
They always start the ride a mile north of that bridge. So that's why the group would be more bunched there.

Here's a good news report showing some of the group. >>>

DangerousDanR

FYI:
it seems that the driver of the pickup is in a lot of trouble.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...ists-rcna72338

RCMoeur 

On this morning's group ride, one of the people said (which I have not yet been able to corroborate) that the striking vehicle was pulling a trailer. This could bring up added possible scenarios of negligence: i.e. inexperience or inattention in passing the pack and then changing lanes while the trailer was still alongside the group. Again, this if so this would be fully the driver's error or fault, as a driver towing a trailer assumes full responsibility for the reasonably safe transport of that trailer. I distinctly recall on past rides out to Saguaro or Canyon Lake drivers passing me with ample room, and then erroneously moving back into the lane before their trailer had fully passed me, resulting in an unexpectedly close inspection of their right-side wheels or their boat's sideboards. And it didn't take malicious intent - just errors and misjudgements on their part.

There is another unpleasant possibility. If Mr. Quintana-Lujan hires aggressive defense counsel, they may try to ascribe as much contributory negligence to the riders as the judge will allow, regardless of the events or facts at the actual incident scene. Riders called as witnesses could be faced with questions such as "Are you certain you didn't veer into the truck's path?" and other questions intended to sow doubt in jurors' minds or reduce any award or settlement. Here is where rider video (if any is available) could show the cyclists maintaining a straight line as the truck (or trailer) enters their path, refuting the defense assertion. Conversely, defense counsel could subpoena available video to look for any illegal or inappropriate behavior at other parts of the ride (blowing stop signs or red signals, etc.) and try to claim recklessness on the part of the riders, regardless of their behavior at the actual crash. It's my understanding it would be up to the judge to rule on admissibility.

Arizona is also one of the few states with little public agency immunity and unlimited agency exposure, so the City of Goodyear could get pulled in as an added defendant, regardless of any documented agency actions or whether the crash site met all current guidelines. This happens in cases with extreme injuries or deaths, as the city is seen as having the "deepest pockets" for bills and awards, and juries siding with killed/injured plaintiffs against a "big city". Other jurisdictions such as Yavapai County have essentially shut off any cyclist recognition on many roads after being pulled into a suit a while ago and having to settle for 6-7 figures, even though the roadway had little to do with the crash. It's a huge roadblock for some initiatives such as the US Bicycle Route program, as Yavapai County won't cooperate if they see any possible added litigation exposure, having been bit hard earlier while just trying to operate their roadway system.

Note: I am not a legal professional, and the above does not constitute legal, engineering, or professional advice, and is worth exactly what I am being paid to produce it.

RCMoeur 

In many decades of cycling, from riders and non-riders, and even all too often here in A&S, one sees this mindset from some people:
"I wouldn't feel comfortable riding a bicycle there, so you shouldn't."

Chuck Naill

I think part of the equation is "peloton". I know the laws allow us to ride on the roads, but I have seen some groups not recognizing that a driver may be on the way to an emergency or other important event/errand.

JW Fas

All road users are legally required to move over for emergency vehicles, which make their presence known by the flashing blue and red lights. As for important events or errands, why does that take precedence? I was taught to leave the house early enough to account for possible traffic hiccups. Even if the cyclists in this incident were "hogging" the road, it's not a mitigating circumstance that remotely alleviates what the motorist did.

himespau 

That's more than I see most of the time.

DangerousDanR

One of my roles as a volunteer firefighter medic was to teach the proper driving of fire apparatus and ambulances. One of the things that I tried to impress on students was that the absolute worst thing they could do was to create a second incident scene when responding to an incident.

Our department had some serious discussions with law enforcement about their tendency to respond at triple digit speeds. Even when we needed law enforcement on scene, what they were doing raised the possibility of a serious incident that would overwhelm our resources. So if it is a real emergency, drive at a safe speed.

This incident happened on a road with two lanes of travel in each direction. I can't think of any situation that merits driving in an unsafe manner, and it appears that the Goodyear AZ police believe they have probable cause to arrest the driver of the pickup. Stop blaming the victims of a criminal act.

Paul Barnard

That does not at all appear to be part of this equation.

A pack of cyclists is easier to get around than a bunch of individual cyclists.

How would you recommend that I ascertain the importance of a driver's journey?

One of the primary excuses offered and accepted in car vs bicycle collisions is the "I didn't see him." excuse. Being part of a peloton can help negate that excuse.

jon c. 

That attitude never ceases to amaze me.

GamblerGORD53

What I really object to is the VC crowd yelling can use FULL lane. Then they think that includes 3 bikes wide with their handlebars being right on the line.
Totally BS thinking. The 3 foot rule applies to that as well. The driver's view is severely blocked. Shouldn't be within 3 feet except briefly passing.
Trailers are 10 times as dangerous. They were about all that crowded me on my tours.

UniChris

We should remember to distinguish between the position people may take when there's no other traffic nearby, versus the position they take when there is other traffic passing, especially doing so frequently when confined by yet other traffic.

Additionally, because cyclists change position in a group ride, there is passing behavior going on within a ride as well, and where there's no need to make those passes sudden, they will typically unfold slowly. When there isn't an organized rotation, some passing moves may begin but end up being undone rather than completed.

So much of appropriate cycling is situational - so you can't look at what happened in one situation, and assume you know anything about what people were doing in another.

And this becomes even more true when we're probably not even talking about the same individuals.

Daniel4

"..manslaughter, aggravated assault, and causing serious injury or death by a moving violation,.."

That's more than what knew in the original story.

It was wishful thinking on my part hoping for an involuntary manslaughter charge.

I'm not disappointed as I was expecting the driver to be released without charges as in so many cases.

FBinNY 

Let's be clear.

Riding in packs and spreading out across the RD b road is rude. The appropriate response is definitely short of vehiculsr assault or murder.

In any case, there's no mention of backed up traffic here, and if there were the s peds would have been lower and not nearly as many would be injured.

Bt the same token, a large pack of cyclists is far more visible at a greater distance than a lone cyclist, making it harder to understand how this happened

Generally, I'm the one "blaming the victim" for his part in failing to avoid a collision. However, I can't see anything they could have done wrong here.

JoeyBike

I have no idea what happened on that bridge. IMO either the driver was trashed on drugs and/or alcohol, OR...a large vehicle was ahead of the vehicle that struck them shielding the cyclists from view until it was too late. Unless it was on purpose. Cyclists don't have to be wrong to get struck from behind - the most helpless position a cyclist can be in - fast traffic overtaking them continually.

GhostRider62

3-4 abreast in places and instances of riders in both lanes at the same time. Not safe riding in my book. By a long shot.

FBinNY 

Doesn't matter for the issue at hand.

There was broad daylight and no sightline issue, so ANY driver had plenty of time to see the obstruction in front of him with plenty of time to stop.

If you consider the minimum space that 12 moving bikes can occupy, it's obvious that there was considerable distance between the first and last impact. So, either great speed, or brakes not applied until immediately before or after the first ride was hit.

Best case, reckless indifference manslaughter. This comes from someone who generally opposes criminalizing accidents.

GamblerGORD53

I just remembered something similar I saw about 1986, on the main street of Penticton BC, in afternoon rush hour, bright sunshine.
I was driving my Camaro behind some tour motorcycles. One had it's hard case side containers over the center line. Right away I thought I should warn him... too late. Seconds later a car bumper hit the trunk and the Harley went crashing down. I guess the guy and his wife weren't hurt too bad.