LesterOfPuppets

Not to mention that accessing the sidewalk from the road would require:

A. Lifting your bike over a jersey barrier then hopping over it yourself
OR
B. A 270' portage over road cleat devouring gravel

(and this is just on the north side approach)

RCMoeur 

This leads to "They should have been riding gravel bikes on the dirt shoulder."

And when anyone is moving goalposts, they should lift them high enough as to not damage the playing surface.

jon c. 

The linked abstract states:

Nearly one-third of these crashes involve overtaking motorists

not the vast majority

JoeyBike

They should, but never will. Vegas odds would be a million to one against motorists doing what they should. IMO. I'm not in Los Vegas.

I-Like-To-Bike

I suspect that a majority, if not vast majority of cyclists seldom if ever ride in scenarios where they are seriously exposed to the risk of high speed overtaking rear end crashes.

livedarklions

That's an absurd statement on its face. That's a risk anytime you ride on any road because drivers routinely exceed the speed limit. And what does "seriously exposed" even mean? That's like being seriously pregnant. And while you're at it, define high speed. I don't know about you but I really don't want to get overtaken by a truck going 40 mph.

I-Like-To-Bike

The solution to your problem of not wanting to get overtaken by a truck going 40 mph has already been suggested - do not ride on roads with 40 mph traffic.

Many cyclists choose that alternative and eliminate or reduce the risk of being struck in the rear by that choice. "Experienced cyclists" who post of their frequent long distance journeys, recreational or competitive rides or commutes on 40mph+ highway are not necessarily representative of the largest segment of the cycling population. In addition to those "experienced cyclists" in the population of cyclists who willingly increase their risk of being struck in the rear by faster traffic can be added those inebriated cyclists who find themselves cycling in the middle of traffic lanes while under the influence.

Alternatively, though it doesn't reduce a concern with being "overtaken", numerous cyclists reduce their exposure to being struck from the rear by 40mph + traffic by not riding directly in front of it. Bike lanes and shoulders, lower speed/less busy routes, and riding in parks and on trails are alternates many cyclists choose. Riding to the right as far as practical if no suitable alternate is available, while not as effective at reducing the risk of being struck in the rear, puts the cyclist at less risk than riding where the cyclist is sure to be struck by a motorist that does not make a deliberate maneuver around him.

livedarklions

Missed my point entirely. Because of speeding, there's pretty much no road in the US that won't have some 40 mph traffic. I don't care about your views on how to handle it as it's clear you can't really think outside of your own small town Iowan context, but again, the statement that "a majority, if not the vast majority" of cyclists don't face a scenario where being overtaken by a faster moving motor vehicle is absurd. Regardless of your position on the road, that's always a possibility unless there's an actual physical barrier between the traffic lane and where you are on the road. So your assertion only makes sense if the "majority or vast majority of cyclists" don't ride in a road.

Sorry, but I've had two incidents where I was as FRAP as FRAP can be, and damn near got hit by some schmuck coming up behind me very fast using the breakdown lane as an express lane or turn lane.

I-Like-To-Bike

Your point was that you don't like to be "overtaken" by fast vehicles like 40mph trucks. It is unclear whether "overtaken" to you means being passed or being struck. I'll assume you meant passed since I will also assume that you are like most people and would not like to be struck by a truck or any other motor vehicle at any speed. Your concern over the speed of vehicles that pass does not seem related to risk reduction as it does not seem reduced if the passing vehicles are in another lane or have given adequate lateral distance while passing.

There is "always a possibility" of almost anything happening, good or bad. Intelligent people evaluate those possibilities and make their choices about reducing risk accordingly. That is what risk management is all about; AND it applies everywhere and to all our activities, including bicycling.

People who are not so intelligent, or choose not to think intelligently, can ignore or poo-poo the concept of variable levels of risk in their activities and can always point out unusual circumstances or unlikely occurrences of mishap to justify why they choose the riskier alternatives, or alternatively, seem unable to function at all because something bad could happen no matter what course of action is chosen.

GhostRider62

Since you probably ride on similar roads as I do, what the data said to me what about 30% of the fatalities on bikes are outside urban areas. Of those crashes outside urban areas, a very high percentage of them were from the rear. When you are out in the country, nobody is making a left hook into you because there are so few turns. OTOH, many country roads are narrow and have meager shoulders. My key strategy is minimizing the speed differential. Say I ride on flat roads at 20 mph, I try to ride roads with 35 mph limits. If the road has 50 mph limit, you know cars are going 60+ and I only ride those if there is long and good clear line of sight and if there is a wide shoulder. That is my risk mgt strategy. I think city dwellers believe nobody rides bikes out in the country.

livedarklions

No, it really wasn't. You're just shifting goalposts. I was just pointing out that "high speed" was a really arbitrary term.

Well, that I meant "passed" was a stupid assumption since the statement of yours that I was objecting to was that "a majority, if not vast majority of cyclists seldom if ever ride in scenarios where they are seriously exposed to the risk of high speed overtaking rear end crashes". "Overtaking" was your word, I just used another tense. Again, I was pointing out how stupid what you said was, this is always a risk. Of course I meant "struck". Why would you assume I was objecting to getting passed when the context made it clear I was using the word in the exact same way that you were? You only did that to make what I said sound like nonsense.

Or, you know, unintelligent people can make broad indefensible statements about the risks faced by "the vast majority of cyclists" and just choose to put idiotic arguments into the mouths of people who point out how dumb the statement was. Just admit you mispoke instead of rewriting everything I say into nonsense you're making up.

If you actually rode in a major metropolis from time to time, you'd notice that the line between FRAP and taking the lane can be rather blurry, and often varies on a block by block basis.. You're in a dumb argument with someone over whether drivers should slow down in the lane over from a cyclist, that argument is really pointless and I want nothing to do with it. But I think you understating the risks when someone is riding FRAP is not doing anyone any favors.

livedarklions

I do a lot of riding in both urban and rural contexts. I do think the strategies I use are very different, and the spacing of the intersections is a huge factor in this. But the rural areas have their own "intersecting traffic" issues. You definitely need to watch out for obscured driveways and the like..

PeteHski

For me in the UK that would mean not riding on the road at all.

Daniel4

That's exactly what he's suggesting. Let the bullies rule.

I-Like-To-Bike

Anyone who rides on the road should be aware that vehicles will pass them, and that if given the appropriate spacing, the passing vehicle's speed has no effect on their safety.

Cyclists who can't figure that out should learn to get over their irrational thoughts on the subject of passing vehicles' speed, learn to live with their fear of vehicles being faster than themselves, or take my suggestion.

The reality of cyclists' risk from rear end collisions is that it is the motorists who do not pass at all but instead crash into the cyclist in front of them that causes the injuries and death of cyclists, not the motorists who do not reduce speed during the pass.

UniChris

If the spacing is truly appropriate to the speed, yes.

But consider that the air behind a large vehicle like a truck passing at speed can disturb the lane holding of a cyclist - it can even disturb that of a smaller car.

And the fact that in many jurisdictions the legally appropriate spacing for passing a stopped emergency vehicle without slowing is "an entire empty lane in between" is not entirely without meaningful parallel. Typical the law is written as a requirement to leave that empty lane as buffer space, or to slow if that is not possible, not both.

So yes, if the spacing is truly sufficient to the speed, then slowing is not needed.

But if the spacing is only marginal, some slowing could be nice.

And there are plenty of jurisdictions which actually do specify the minimal legal spacing for passing a cyclist in a way that varies with the driver's speed, which often means that even if they do not have the space to do so in lane at their initial speed, they may once they slow down to something less drastically faster than the cyclist. Or they can match the cyclists's speed until they can use another lane.

I was looking at some overhead helicopter or drone video of this bridge last night, and the width is just immense, with all of the travel squeezed over at the very edges. No wonder on one of the videos we see a driver leave the left lane as buffer and pass in the median - they're still closer to the wall at the edge than they are to where oncoming traffic would be, in the rare cases where there even is any. Probably not legally required, but still a good move.

Of course, maintaining active control of the vehicle is a pre-requisite to any of this - and that appears to be where things failed for whatever reason the renewed investigation will hopefully identify.

rickpaulos

Finally some "reason" cited in the press. Been waiting to hear if the driver was OWI, distracted by a smartphone, or what. To his credit, the driver did not leave the scene like some crackhead would.

Goodyear officials shared new details on Monday about the vehicle collision involving a Ford F-250 pickup that plowed into a group of bicyclists, killing two and injuring 17 others Saturday morning.

Police say 26-year-old Pedro Quintana-Lujan traveled south while driving the truck on Cotton Lane Bridge at around 7:57 a.m. when he crashed into the group of cyclists. Court documents state Quintana-Lujan told police that his steering was locked when the vehicle began drifting to the right and into the cyclists.

Documents say he eventually let off the gas and regained control of the vehicle before bringing it to a stop in the middle of the bridge where he remained as first responders arrived. Quintana-Lujan told police at one point that he was traveling between 40-45 mph and later estimated his speed was between 45-50 mph.


I found lots of internet complaints about F-250 steering. "F series wobble" or "Ford Death Wobble"
This site below has 687 owner complaints. After reading through a bunch of them it's clear Ford is blowing off owners citing parts aren't available. One complaint stated this has been going on since 1973. Some state the problem started in a truck with just 2500 miles on the odo. Seems hitting a pothole or expansion joint can trigger the wobble and loss of control.

Every individual truck would respond differently depending on how weak the dampers are, loose or worn out front end bearings, ball joints and other suspension joints, the cargo load distribution, tire condition, etc so trying to pin the problem to an exact speed isn't practical. Many of the complaints cite 70mph but if more parts are worn, I would think it triggers at lower speeds. Hard to blame a vehicle owner for not doing the repair work when the dealer blows you off or there are no parts to fix it. Since this has been going on for years, clearly Ford doesn't care to address it. Typical big car company behavior. Remember the Pinto memo? Cheaper to pay off the family members for deaths than to fix it.

https://www.carcomplaints.com/Ford/F...steering.shtml

I experienced the ford "death wobble" I had $1200 worth of repairs done on steering and suspension parts. 10,000 miles and 7 months later I am experiencing the same problems again. This is a real safety concern because you loose all control of the vehicle at speeds over 50 miles per hour. How long before this problem kills someone? The first time I experienced this problem the vehicle dragged me across 3 lanes of traffic at 70 mph.

livedarklions

"If given the appropriate spacing" is a hell of a lot easier assumption where you ride than it is for someone who rides in a crowded city. I agree with you both as a driver and a cyclist that Daniel4 's example of a car needing to pass slowly even if a full lane over from the cyclist was absurd. But in a city with on-street parking, the real danger of being hit from behind is more likely to be from a car that's passing too close striking you with their mirror or the side of their vehicle. As a driver in that situation, I expect to have a small delay while I wait for my opportunity to pass with enough room, usually by going into the oncoming lane in the absence of any traffic. I do this slowly for a number of reasons.

You keep making these "suggestions" about where and when to ride without acknowledging that for a lot of people, you're basically telling them they shouldn't cycle where they live. Think I'd look for a different approach than your suggestions then.

The general problem with A&S is too many people telling other people what they should do. You're just adding to this cacophony of clashing nonsense when you try to draw broad conclusions from your obviously limited perspective.

Gyro

How does wheel wobble stop the brakes from working? There's brakes on all four wheels, does wheel wobble happen on all four wheels at the same time? That's a bit hard to believe.

JoeyBike

Using a farm truck as a family car is the first problem. Remember all of the SUV rollovers several years ago? Using a para-military vehicle (on a farm truck chassis) as a family car seems to be a bad idea also.

Pickup trucks and high profile vehicles on pickup truck chassis are inherently difficult to regain control once it is lost - by design. Unskilled operators adds to the problem. Our only hope is that people who make idiotic vehicle choices eliminate themselves and not others. Auto manufacturers are driven by what sells, not what's safe. At their best, "family trucks" are more difficult to control if anything goes sideways while they are generally purchased by people believing they are safer. And now they are EVERYWHERE, not just on farms and battlefields (unless you consider he open road to be a battlefield).

Enjoy your next ride! No need to worry about traffic overtaking you. It's all good! 💀

GhostRider62

So you want me to die?

JoeyBike

If your farm/paramilitary vehicle goes sideways on the highway I hope no one else has to pay for your choice of vehicle. Nothing personal. I have no interest in mandating what vehicle anyone buys. Kindly don't take me out with you.

For your enjoyment. The ultimate in losing control - even without engineering defects:

19 Vehicles With An Extremely High Risk Of Tipping Over

.
.
.

CliffordK

There are more questions to answer. However, if this was the "Death Wobble", then I can imagine Ford getting hit with a major lawsuit. The vehicle appears to be intact enough that the suspension should be able to be evaluated. Get the NTSA involved?

The pickup model is somewhere between 2017 and 2022, so at max of 5 or 6 years old. Mileage unknown. And the complaints had applied to previous models as well as that one, so Ford either can't, or hasn't bothered to fix the problem.

The driver, of course, doesn't seem to have handled the issue well. Wobble or not, lock up the brakes before killing someone.

CliffordK

The Chevy El-Camino and Ford Ranchero have largely fallen out of favor, although other brands have built car chassis pickups.

Instead the pickups have all gone to taller and heavier.

I am a fan of 4 wheel drive, but I don't need it to be 6" taller than 2 wheel drive.

Dodge RAM added suspension air bags to their top of the line LIMITED version giving it adjustable ride height as well as self leveling. But, that wasn't done on other models. I wonder how that impacts stability.

The EVs are supposed to have good weight distribution, reducing rollovers. I wonder how the Rivian, Lightning, or Hummer EV fair with rollovers...

RCMoeur 

I went by the site today while helping with a bike event nearby.

A small memorial by the only tire sidewall mark on the entire southbound side of the bridge.



A close-up of the memorial. The river also has water flowing in it for the first time in a number of years (excess runoff from the Verde River).