moth54

https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=2479254

BobbyG

Tragic and unfortunate.

As the video begins it looks like the traffic light has turned yellow as the white SUV has entered the intersection. A black sedan enters the intersection and the light turns red. Then a white sedan enters and turns right on red without stopping. Finally the big white truck enters the intersection against the red light, and appears to be traveling straight ahead, but is in fact makes a wide right turn.

So first and foremost, the truck entered the intersection illegally.

The cyclist, who must be able to see the green light (and perhaps a walk signal...I can't make it out) begins to cross while the white sedan is passing in front of him.

While legally the truck driver appears to be at fault, the cyclist does not appear to be fully aware of traffic, and not aware of the large truck which should have been in his forward field of vision two bike length before the collision.

Perhaps the cyclist was looking down at his pedals or derailleurs.

The truck should have been very noisy, but, that whole intersection looks even noisier, so that audio clue may have been obscured.

Also, I can't tell if the cyclist has a mirror or not.

I also noticed the cyclist behind him and the pedestrian to his right all began moving at the same time.

It is easy to analyze the situation on video after the fact, but of course one does not have that ability in real time.

After 30 years of daily bike commuting I like to think that I would have avoided colliding with the truck, but I can't be certain of that. It was very unexpected, and once the brain says "go" it seems like it clears all the points of concern for that situation.

My first thought was that this situation is similar to a very busy intersection on my commute route that has seen a few car-pedestrian collisions and fatalities over the years from cars blowing through lights and pedestrians proceeding according to lights and not the actual situation. (a couple of car-ped collisions were due to people crossing well away from the crosswalks). So I'd like to think I'd be sharp enough to avoid this situation, but every situation is different and there may be certain dynamics at play unique to the time and place that are not present in any past experience.

The bottom line is, thank you moth54 for posting this link so that we all can study it and learn from it. And hopefully it will help keep us from ending up in a similar situation.

DonkeyShow

Bike guy needs to not stand in the middle of the road while waiting. Green doesn't mean safe, pay attention.

Iride01 

Geez, I was excited to see a new post here after having to endure just comments to wearing a soft brim with a helmet for so long.

But all I find is a link to something with no thoughts from the OP as to why I should even go to the link. And certainly nothing from the OP to give us a sense of how they feel toward the link they posted.

Seems like a troll post. Maybe not the intention, but that is all it's good for IMO.

UniChris

To my eye, the cyclist starts moving when the light changes, but then hesitates upon seeing that they're being violated by the truck driver.

Unfortunately, the cyclist doesn't have an complete enough mental model of how trucks work to realize the degree to which the body of the truck is going to continue moving sideways towards them as it completes the turn.

It's not supposed to be on the victim to save themselves from another's transgression, but practically, defensive riding is a thing just as defensive driving and walking are. And unfortunately, stopping isn't enough to save oneself from this violation, it would require moving away. A pedestrian might be spry enough to still have jumped back in time from the position the cyclist reached, but a cyclist would have had to recognize what was happening even a bit sooner than a pedestrian, in order to stop shorter or steer out of danger.

Overall, this tragedy stresses why paths routed to the side of a road (but not properly part of it) worry me.

Yes, the truck driver appears to be making a right-on-red without first stopping as required. I also strongly suspect that they looked, didn't see any vehicular movement on the cross street, and so assumed they were okay.

If the truck driver had stopped first, in this case that would likely have provided enough time delay that this particular flow of cyclists could have gotten far enough into the intersection to have been unmistakably obvious.

But I still worry that a driver stopping to properly make a right-on-red might be mistakenly checking for vehicular movement on the cross street (which presumably also is facing a red) and not realize that the conflicting traffic they actually need to be looking for is instead cyclists moving on a parallel course with a different green phase - red lights don't indicate who has the green and might move.

The scenario I worry about with these designs is a driver arriving at a red light when there aren't any bikes, seeing no cross vehicular traffic and beginning a right on red, just as a cyclist rides up off to their right, sees the bike-phase green and decides that the intersection is granted to them uniquely, and so charges into a developing right hook, quite often bringing the additional combination of the sort of cycling speed that was not present in this particular just-started-from-a-stop situation.

There's also a complication you can often observe in busy urban settings with paths like this where drivers actually are aware enough of pedestrians that they do honor the crosswalk, but let concentrating on doing that distract them into overlooking the bike route that they'll typically cross first, and which has the potential for much faster movement.

I don't like designs like this - they give the false impression of safety, while actually remaining quite dangerous.

Ideally, if we're going to create a bike route that's not a properly placed part of the road, then its interaction with roads should be positioned uniquely so that the bike route crossing the road is the only thing that's going on there, eliminating the potential for confusion, and making it so that the only users who have the possibility of a turn there (to say nothing of a turn on red) would be cyclists.

BobbyG

this! +100

njkayaker

https://www.google.com/maps/@48.4287...=en&authuser=0


https://www.google.com/maps/@48.4285...4!8i8192?hl=en

It looks like right turns are prohibited when the light is red.

Daniel4

As a cyclist and as a pedestrian, before starting to make any crossing, I check the traffic to see what it's doing. Too often, I see drivers race to make their right turn just as I step off the curb. In this case, it would have looked as if the truck was going straight not knowing it was making a wide right. Was its right turn signal on? Pedestrians and cyclists should have seen this signal if it had been flashing. I can't say if it were me caught in the middle of crossing, if I had reacted in time even if I did see a signal.

As a driver, when I approach intersections I check if there are pedestrians. And especially if there is a bike lane, I check for cyclists I had passed along the way and any at the intersection.

In the video, it does look as if the cyclists were starting their move right after the sedan had made its turn. That means, the cyclists must have had their signal. This was at the same instant the truck driver also entered the intersection. The truck driver should have seen the cyclists waiting at the intersection AND should have been aware of the cyclists/pedestrian signal. Not only that, anybody making a right turn on a green light HAS to check for pedestrians crossing. So it looks like the truck driver was racing to make his turn as I've seen so many times before by other drivers.


But having stated all that, I notice something puzzling. When the sedan made its turn, it looked like it did it on a green because other traffic in the same direction was also going. So was the cycling/pedestrian light red? In Toronto, pedestrian and cyclist lights are given a priority 5 second advance before car traffic lights turn green. So for any motor vehicle turning right, it would already be seeing pedestrians in the intersection before the vehicles can proceed. That doesn't look like the case in this Victoria intersection.

njkayaker

A mirror wouldn't have helped much.

"Swivel head".

Most people tend to just look where they are going. They really need to look around (move their head) more.

Presumably, after 30 years, you move your head and look around.

njkayaker

The rider sees the white car and starts rolling as the car passes. They don't appear to slow down (hesitate) for the truck at all.

It's a general principle that people (adults) are supposed to take care to try save themselves for any reason. That's the basis for defensive riding/driving/walking. It's also a general principle that people are supposed to take due care not to harm other people. Both sides are necessary.

BobbyG

I do, but it's not as easy...the Take-A-Look mirror helps.

I also swivel my head and look behind me in the car, which my wife hates, but I want to make sure the mirrors didn't miss anything.

GamblerGORD53

The truck did go on red no doubt. Why is another question. It does look like it might be one of those new 3 phase plans with one just for peds and bikes to cross in all directions. In that case no right on red is justified, otherwise it's stupid.

But otherwise here is Lefty new think engineering on full display. Traffic islands that enable bikes to be 2" from moving traffic 12 feet into the intersection >> where they have ZERO eye contact with traffic they would otherwise be right beside. Plus new think makes lanes stupidly narrow and truck turns near impossible. That is the ONLY WAY a truck can make that turn. The light pole island is the biggest obstacle there.
But hey, it's aptly named Pandora's box. And yesterday as I was taking it easy on the sidewalk in rush hour, A SUV corner rear-ended a car right in front of me and a father with a 4 yo daughter riding a bike.

njkayaker

In this case, we are talking about observing something big about 45' to the left. It sort-of looks like the rider was focused on not hitting the white car that passed in front of them (at 0' and moving right).

EDIT: the white car was already past. It seems the rider looked at the truck but chose not to stop but (I guess?) assumed the truck would stop. I don't think the rider was being careful at all.

BobbyG

That's one thing that's so scary to me about the video. As alert, pro-active and cautious as I like to think I am, I still occasionally fail to notice things right in front of me, or coming my way.

moth54

Greetings all. I have an update as of 6 july 2022.

First: to confirm the location, it is the corner of Pandora and Store streets. The video camera is aimed to the southwest. Cyclists and pedestrians are thus on the northwest corner and in the process of proceeding, or trying to proceed, south. The collision was with a truck headed southwest (i.e south on Store, then turning right or west on Pandora which crosses a bridge.)

2: The good news is that the cyclist suffered non-life threatening injuries. (No further details on health status given.)

3. : Njkayaker, you were correct to note that the intersection does not permit a right turn on red, and is so posted.

4. Here's the depressing part. There is a separate light for cyclists/pedestrians. This isn't visible in the video. However, that's why the cyclists and pedestrian start to proceed across the intersection. Combined with a 'no right turn on red' rule [i.e. no turning right for motorized traffic when the motorized traffic light is red] this should have prevented this accident.

Thoughts: My guess is that we have all seen cars enter and proceed straight through an intersection not just when their light turns amber, but when their light turns red. Generally these are the first and second vehicles next in line to enter the intersection when the light has not just started to change but has in fact changed. In this case, it appears that the first and second vehicles (the white sedan and the truck) were doing something similar - somehow trying to catch a 'tail end' of a window of opportunity that has in fact already closed - or at least, is supposed to be, per the law, closed. The difference being that the traffic in question is blowing the red while turning.

It has been pointed out before on this forum that no matter what the legal specifics of the situation, when incidents like this happen it is the cyclist/pedestrian who will pay the higher price.

Thus, my takeaway on this is, that irrespective of whether there are separate pedestrian/cyclist lights, to consider resisting the urge to enter the intersection at the first opportunity. Wait a second or two for any scofflaw stragglers, I know, that isn't fair, but the laws of physics are indifferent to fairness, only to which party has the least protective mass surrounding it.

https://www.saanichnews.com/news/cyc...town-victoria/

moth54

In this case, it would have looked as if the truck was going straight not knowing it was making a wide right.

DanielG most interesting point. Even if the cyclists and pedestrians perceived the truck to be in violation, they might not have guessed correctly exactly how the truck was in violation. "Hey, that straight-through proceeding truck is blowing the red, what a donkey brain" would be their first thought and not "that truck may be about to violate the no right turn on red rule, we had better watch out!" As it is that cyclist at least reacted fast enough to avoid going under the actual wheels of the truck, or so it seems to this viewer.

moth54

Oh, and I tend to agree that at a busy intersection, I'd rather be permitted to join the line of traffic and have my butt planted right in front of the vehicle behind me as this gives maximum opportunity for the driver to see me.

In another case of intended safety feature that may just substitute one problem for another: Today I rode down a 'traffic calmed' neighbourhood street that is also marked as a bike route. By 'traffic calmed' I mean that the curbs have been altered to sweep out, then back in...sweep out, and then back in. In short, the street has been narrowed, but not in a consistent way.

If you follow the curb you are not keeping a straight line - not a good idea if you are being followed by a semi as I was. And yet, I found myself moving over to the curb automatically to permit the semi to pass me. Bad idea as it meant I departed from keeping a straight line. I avoided the semi, but could have set myself up to be clobbered by a vehicle behind the semi.

njkayaker

It's visible on Google Streetview (which I linked to).

Here it is again. The "no right turn when red" sign is also visible.

https://www.google.com/maps/@48.4285...4!8i8192?hl=en

Looking around would have likely also prevented the collision. It's kind of surprising the rider continued with the truck right there. I don't think the rider was being careful enough.

And bloody-well look around.

zandoval 

I have had two "Near Miss" incidents like this long ago on my motorcycle. Oddly I blame myself more than the truck drivers now that I have driven a large Truck. Surly both parties are at fault but to what degree I do not dare to assign.

In the US Army in Italy we were once moving Heavy Equipment from Aviano to Verona. Our convoy was spread out over several kilometers to prevent traffic jams. I was shot gun with an Italian driver who would tap a short blast on his horn before making a turn in the small towns we drove through. I asked him why and he replied that he once drug a Cinquecento (small Fiat car) 300 meters before he felt it under his under carriage. I asked him what happened to the driver, he answered... Buhhh...

Lets be careful out there you'se guys...

UniChris

Take a closer look and you'll see that there's a stop line marking where the lead cyclist should wait.

They are just beyond that (their front tire contact patch is just past it) and they are in a position comparable to the island to their right, though that's not really the issue here.

The other cyclists further back could perhaps be argued to be blocking theoretical pedestrian routes and wheelchair ramps, but not fully clear where people would be walking since none were.

The waiting position of the pedestrian further to the right is more questionable in theory, but likely only any sort of issue if a cyclist had been trying to make a turn. You can see that pedestrian take a cautious step back from their waiting position as the white car turns. And then react much more dramatically to the turning truck - stopping the crossing they'd started, backing way up out of danger, but then after the collision going right back in to check on the cyclist.

njkayaker

The pedestrian saw the white car fairly far away and walked into the intersection with that big-assed truck nearly right in front of them. They "reacted much more dramatically" because, some how, they were surprised by the big truck.

I'm guessing the cycle/pedestrian crossing light was red with the white car and turned green/white and both the cyclist and pedestrian just weren't really looking. The pedestrian managed to look in time. The cyclist, even though they had ample time to see the truck and stop, blundered ahead.

Daniel4

I agree up to the point of the cyclist "blundered ahead". I think the cars had their green light as the sedan was making its right turn. The pedestrians and cyclists had their red light. The pedestrian/ cyclist light turned green (or white) as the sedan finished its turn but the truck rushed through without regard for the fact that there were pedestrians and cyclists waiting to cross. Eventhough it's true those vulnerable road users should have looked around first, the onus is on the truck driver because 1) he saw the people waiting to cross; 2) he should have seen the pedestrian light turn green or white; 3) he should have seen people start to cross after the sedan finished turning just like he was waiting for the sedan too; and 4) he mis-judged the cyclists speed as he was racing with the pedestrians.

If you're the second car waiting to turn, when it's your turn, you still have to check for pedestrians.

njkayaker

The cyclist had lots of time to see the truck and stop. The other cyclists managed not to get run over.

The onus is on all parties. The goal is to be safe by any reasonable necessary means.

There were two opportunities to stay safe. The truck driver failed to take one. The cyclist failed to take the other.

The cyclist can't change what the truck driver does. They can only change what they do.

Clearly, relying on the truck driver to do his duty failed miserably.

You know drivers fail to do this regularly. You also have to check for cars.

OdaHumanity

that is terrifying and horrible! My thoughts to his family

moth54

Greetings njkayaker. I didn't mean that the separate light wasn't visible in your google street view link (which is great by the way and thanks for posting it) but I at least couldn't make out the light in the video of the accident because of the high angle of the camera. (I can make out the street light in the centre of the road and can see it turn red.)

Yes, your point that we have necks (that we can turn) as well as eyes is a good one.