detroitjim

Likely distracted when they recognized the mapping vehicle.
Looks as though neither rider was injured.

Neither rider wore helmets.
Rider #2(white shirt) had a rack but was carrying a bag on his handle bar.(probably not a factor in the collision)
Occurred in Mexico

Volume warning!

Bike Crash

livedarklions

It's real:

https://www.google.com/maps/@21.0716...7i13312!8i6656

Not sure it's an A&S topic, but it is amusing.

They don't appear to have been seriously hurt:

https://www.google.com/maps/@21.0716...7i13312!8i6656

fooferdoggie 

I have had several close calls from idiots on bikes doing stupid things.

qwaalodge

The only time I ever collided with another bicycle was with an idiot riding on the wrong side of the road and plenty of close calls with them.

These idiots are even more annoying to come across when you're driving a vehicle at higher speeds

livedarklions

Funny you should say that because you can go back to earlier pictures of the same intersection, and it appears that the one-way on one of the streets was reversed between 2016 and 2017, and the crash occurred in 2018. The rider on the one way is going the right way, btw.

qwaalodge

The quite visible and obvious sign should have erased any confusion, NO?

Even if you have to go against a one way street, it would still be a lot safer if you entered the street from the right side of the road. It makes you see oncoming traffic a lot farther away giving you plenty of time to slow down or move aside.

livedarklions

Do you actually know what the bicycle rules of the road are for that city? I don't.

Also, not to get into a debate about what happened here, but I don't think it's obvious whether the guy in white shirt was turning onto the one way. If you look closely at that picture, he appears to be in one hell of a pothole.

kyplaskon

Looks really low speed

JW Fas

Anyone else think of this?

Daniel4

As much as we point out that drivers don't pay attention to cyclists, a lot of cyclists don't pay attention to cyclists or pedestrians.

How many times have I had close calls with cyclists who run stop signs?

And as a pedestrian crossing a quiet neighbourhood street, I was quite confident the cyclist I was staring at would stop for me as she slowed down. But she just proceeded directly in front of my path anyways.

There was a study that stated both cyclists and drivers violate traffic laws by the same amount.

https://theworld.org/stories/2015-07-18/survey-finds-bicyclists-and-motorists-ignore-traffic-laws-similar-rates

Daniel4

The good news is that the only damage would be their egos or a few scrapes.

Now, if one of those was a car. Now we're looking at a minimum few hundred dollars in damages to the car and possible hospitalization for the cyclist.

mr_bill

OK, damning with faint praise, it appears nobody has been harmed in this "crash" caused by two people riding bikes, "not accident."

I don't know what we can learn here on A&S other than don't get distracted by street view. (And yes, their cars are distracting as hell. Don't ask how I know.)



-mr. bill

qwaalodge

One of them tacoed their front wheel. Look closely at the screenshot I posted a few posts up.

Fortunately, it's the guy at fault. The other rider's bike is totally fine (there's another view of the incident showing the other bike is undamaged)

qwaalodge

Doesn't matter if rider on white bike is turning left or not. His biggest mistake is riding on the opposite side of the road. This thread gave a classic (very good) example of why you should NOT ride on the opposite side of the road - because anyone entering that road, including pedestrians won't be looking your way.

Most countries don't ban riding your bicycle on the opposite side of the road, against the traffic. But it doesn't change the fact, riding on the opposite side makes you a major risk for everyone on the road, including pedestrians and that most riders avoid doing it and most riders dislike anyone doing it.

livedarklions

You're filling in a lot of gaps in the photographic evidence. It's not 100% they even collided. You don't know the local laws or practices, and you don't know the speed involved. It appears from several street images that bikes dominate over cars in that neighborhood. For all we know, the general rule could be that the bicyclist takes whatever position on the two-way street and the one-way rider is supposed to stop.

It's quite possible that rider actually went down because of the very large pothole. The man in the grey appears to be firmly on two feet, maybe crouching down to lay his bike down. That suggests he may have had plenty of time to react to the sudden unexpected fall of the guy in white.

No one's advocating here for wrong-way riding in this thread so your lecture is unnecessary, but I don't think you have enough knowledge of the situation there to label a person as a "total nutcase", or to assign fault.
Also, without knowledge of local practices, you really don't know whether that lane positioning is unpredictable.

Anyone here familiar enough with cycling in that part of Mexico to actually have something interesting to say about that street scene?

qwaalodge

Interesting conclusion but way off. I have far better analysis of the event.

livedarklions

That analysis is worth what I paid you for it.

All I can conclude from that is that you claim to have a remarkable ability to determine where a blurred head is looking and you have no knowledge concerning photographic artifacts--that could be a tacoed wheel, it could also be a perspective distortion. Are you aware of the odd camera angle google street pictures are taken from? The arrow white shirt guy is looking is entirely your creation based on nothing discernable and I could just as easily and plausibly draw that dotted line straight (actually, given that his front wheel clearly does end up in the pothole, the straight dotted line is MORE plausible--if he had been heading right as you describe, there's no reason he would have ended up there)).. The camera angle is from above and to his right, this is likely to give a "he's looking and heading left" bias as the perspective is centered on his right. The pictures are also very low resolution, leaving ambiguity if you're looking at an object or its shadow so that illustration of the wheel shape is absurd. I'm pretty sure the 360 degree lenses used by these Google vehicles would also cause distortions I'm not aware of, but they certainly aren't designed to pick up the level of detail you're claiming here. "No brakes"?! Seriously? You can tell he doesn't have a coaster brake? How? As far as guy in grey shirt fixing his bike, you must be psychic, he could be adjusting his bag, reaching into a pocket, who knows? Or the "repair" could be putting his handlebars that were loose back into position after they got out of whack when he abruptly laid down the bike.

Also, how do you know you're not mixing cause and effect even if you're right about the tacoed wheel? Just as easily, a defective wheel collapses when he hits the pothole causing him to fall.

You've illustrated something very nicely here, though. It's called "confirmation bias". You've interpreted a huge set of ambiguous specifics and interpreted each and every one to support your first impression.

I'm not claiming I know what happened. I don't have a "conclusion" other than there really isn't much "proof" there. The point is you don't know any more than I do. Also, the point is that if no one is actually following a "ride with motor vehicle traffic" rule, your assumptions about people looking only for traffic coming from the direction of motor vehicle traffic are rather odd in an environment where there are so many bicyclists.

I'm actually interested in hearing from people who know what it's like to ride in that area. Incompetent amateur forensic analysis from someone who doesn't know what the rules are or even if there are any is not interesting and really doesn't tell us anything.

3alarmer 

The Subterranean Streets of Guanajuato, Mexico

qwaalodge

You acquire such ability if you've been driving for many years, especially if you drive frequently in a city with plenty of peds on the streets. Eventually you learn to gather useful information in a snap even from your blurry peripheral vision.

Don't tell me you don't drive??

Definitely tacoed his wheel. He can't push the bike along unless he lift the front wheel off the ground and you'll see a bit of distortion on the front wheel in this picture, but not the rear wheel.



Same one way street. There are no stop signs. Pay attention to the rider in yellow circle, go to the link below and move towards the intersection "frame by frame" and you'll notice that rider doesn't even slow down.

https://www.google.com/maps/@21.0715...7i13312!8i6656

We already have all information in the google maps to conclude who's at fault. It's all too obvious but for some strange reason, you prefer to look away and pretend it's not there.

Camilo

Yea, and both were wearing white shirts and blue pants. Why did you mention the helmet when (a) it's obvious from the photo you posted and (b) has nothing to do with the crash. Their riding behavior is more relevant.

Sounds like typical newspaper reporting of irrelevant factors when a hare-brained cyclist or bad driver causes a bike wreck. But I guess since this is A&S, we must point out whenever someone makes the rational adult choice not to wear a helmet.

livedarklions

Sorry, but this is ridiculous. You're just drawing lines on pictures where you think things should be, and then you claim those lines "prove" that's where those things were. You're doing the same thing with your interpretation of people's actions, but that's so obvious I'm not going to go through each point except did you really not notice that there's leaves in the picture that obscures part of the front wheel in the bike standing up picture? And again, it's a rather extreme zoom of a picture taken through a distorting 360 degree lens.

I don't care who's at fault, so I can admit I don't know the things I don't. You've invested yourself into a judgment you've made, so now you're interpreting ambiguous data to fit that judgment.

When you drive, are faces and heads systematically blurred and are you standing on top of your car looking through a 360 degree lens? Please let us know where you drive so I can avoid the area.

I wasn't asking someone who knows riding in that region to figure out who was at fault. Seriously, why should we care about that? What looked interesting to me was the question of what rules are or aren't being followed there, and what strategies they use when riding there knowing that. I don't have any interest in your armchair analyses, you just told me we should notice that the guy riding the wrong way on the street indicates that not stopping at the corner was the norm but not for noticing that riding with the motor vehicle traffic is not the norm. Do I have that right?

I am not entertaining this anymore, so feel free to post some more ludicrous sketches and claims of ESP.

detroitjim

I Suppose that ,depending on the settings of the monitor being used, someone may believe that both had white shirts on.
Those viewing on that same monitor might believe that they were seeing helmets when there weren't any.
Some exploring this thread may...not see... well. IE. Blurred vision ,Age-related macular degeneration, Glaucoma,Cataracts,Diabetic retinopathy,Colorblindness.

Just reinforcing the notion that its unnecessary to utilize any safety implements whenever you take to the pedals.
These individuals didn't(apparently) get head injuries as a result of their collision ...So... Why wear a helmet?
Yea, the guy in the white shirt had a rear rack as well but chose to sling a bag on the handle bar.
That didn't cause the crash either . Don't be concerned about draping items on your bars.... it wasn't a consideration here.

qwaalodge

I mentioned peripheral vision in my previous post. Do you even know what peripheral vision is?

The 360 google streetview isn't badly distorted at all. Lines are quite straight to me. Do you have any eye problem I'm not aware of?

qwaalodge

I estimate their bike speeds to be 10 to 15 kph (6.2 to 9.3 mph) - extrapolating from the distance the google van travelled against the distance covered by the bike. I estimate the van to be traveling at a speed of 20 to 30 kph (18.6 mph tops) - about the same top speed I would have done in those streets.

They're slow enough to avoid any serious injuries if they fell at that speed.

True, I've come across many riders hanging their stuff on the handlebar. I've done it myself. It's only dangerous if the bag is heavy, you're riding fast, it compromises braking ability, and if the bag forces your hand in an awkward position on the handlebar. None of that applies in this thread.

livedarklions

Yes, I'm aware of peripheral vision, and no I don't believe you're capable of perceiving the things you're claiming you can from those pictures. Does your peripheral vision selectively blur faces and detect and predict movement from a series of still images? This literally has absolutely nothing to do with how peripheral vision cues work--peripheral vision is good at detecting movement, but not details. You are literally trying to infer movement from details in still pictures here without actually seeing the movements between those pictures, completely different process.

You're wrong, there's distortion introduced by the whole lens arrangement and peculiar perspective, and it's made worse when you "zoom in" by magnifying areas. Do you have any more stupid, uninformed insulting questions you want to hurl at me or can we call it a day?