welshTerrier2

The truck driver had passed the cyclist shortly before initiating his wide ride turn. According to the American Truckers Association, drivers have a responsibility to "control" the road to their right before making such a turn.

The swing left to turn right method used by the truck driver is NOT the recommended method for making this turn.

Check out the American Truckers Associations Safety Council video:
There were so many things wrong with this situation it's hard to know where to begin.

Would you change lanes if you couldn't see what was going on in the lane next to you? Doing so would be irresponsible. If truck mirrors don't allow a clear view of the adjacent lane, trucks shouldn't be on the roads or their mirrors should be modified to make them safer. Not being able to see is no excuse.

Trucks need to be outfitted with some type of bumper system to prevent cyclists and pedestrians from being run over by their wheels. It is unconscionable that this still is not federal law.

It looks like the Mass Ave bridge has added a separated bike lane. Better late than never but given the very high volume of cyclists who use this bridge, this should have been done many years ago.

Should the truck driver be charged? Absolutely. I'm willing to overlook the "hit and run" aspect because it's entirely possible the driver didn't know he hit the pedestrian. I'm not willing, however, to overlook the fact that he had just passed the cyclist. I'm not willing to overlook the fact that he made his turn at much too high a speed. I'm not willing to overlook the fact that he failed to use the preferred turning method recommended by the American Truckers Association. The preferred method calls for securing the right lane and then swinging wide AFTER you make the turn. This driver opted to swing wide BEFORE he made the turn.

Why charge the driver since he probably feels bad enough? Regardless of what penalties the driver might incur, if any, the law still has to protect cyclists. A major component of our legal system is, or at least should be, public education. I think the driver acted negligently in this case and the law should say so.

Was the truck an illegal size? According to the head of Mass Bike, the truck length complied with the law. It was the maximum length allowed.

Maelochs

Well, if the lane was clear and he had his signal on ...
Again, if the lane was clear when he put his signal on, the fact that he signaled a turn should have warned anyone from trying to sneak by on the inside.

No, that would be the education system. That would be public works. The Legal system is supposed to administer justice when stuff goes wrong.

If it “Should be,” well ... start lobbying. However the laws that need to be administered are the laws on the books, not the laws in our dreams.

Very Wrong.

The Law needs to protect Everyone Equally. Vehicle law needs to protect All vehicle operators.

if the cyclist was “not protected” by the law ... which law? The cyclist rode at speed into the path of a vehicle which was making a turn which the operator had signaled.

The law in this case failed to protect the Driver from the horror of killing a cyclist. But ... is it the law, or the people supposedly operating under that law?

I understand that the driver did not use the "recommended" technique, but is his maneuver Illegal? Apparently not.

I hear people saying he was moving too fast ... but I assume, considering that there is at least on video, that the speed could be determined, and the driver was not ticketed.

I say again ... If I was driving a car which was passed by a truck, the truck put on its signal, and I tried to pass the truck as it was making the turn it had signaled ... I would be liable. The truck signaled a right turn, I knew it was turning, I decided to race it to the corner, I lost. If I floored it and ended up in a place I shouldn’t have been, given that he signaled .....

It seemed clear to me from the first time I saw the video that the cyclist was not paying attention to the truck. If the cyclist thought the truck was turning, the cyclist would not (I hope) have tried to pass it.

It sounds harsh, and it is barely sufficient, but ... the trucker signaled his turn, the cyclist missed it, for whatever reason. if the trucker signaled ... what else could he do? If any vehicle on the road ignored or overlooked a sign or signal and then as a result got into an accident .....

Bottom line for me is, since the truck had an empty lane and used his signal, it would be irresponsible for a car to try to speed past the truck and race it through the intersection. If this were two cars, or a car and a truck, it would be a done deal. The truck signaled a turn and made a turn. The other operator ignored or overlooked the signal.

If anyone can prove that the truck broke the speed limit, or if the law says drivers must use the recommended method, or if anyone can Prove that the driver behaved negligently ...

This is akin to the tragic situation when a child darts out from between two parked cars into the path of a moving car, and the driver, operating legally, doesn’t have time to stop. The cyclist should not have been there. Sadly she was.

Finally ...

Have you thought at all or was this whole post just emotion?

What sort of system exactly would prevent a cyclist or pedestrian from going under a truck which would also not impede the function of the truck and would also not endanger or injure the cyclist or pedestrian just as much? Show me your design.

Even if the trailer had plates extending from the frame to six inches above the ground, the cyclist in this case would have crashed into them fallen and still potentially gotten run over.

What, exactly, are you demanding that be made federal law? Post your “fool-proof” design that won’t render the truck useless and will prevent all the possible accidents.

Then price it out—cost per vehicle, cost per mile, cost per life saved.

Here’s something to consider—laws don’t stop things from happening and more than stop signs stop vehicles. If people screw up badly enough, Nothing can keep them safe.

You come up with a practical life-saving barrier of the sort you are describing ... and Great. if it is really that good, I am sure it will be adopted. But really ... what kind of barrier would have helped here?

I can tell you from experience, a semi-trailer can roll over about Anything. Unless the barrier were actually pressing on the road—in which case it would stop the truck from moving—then stuff could get underneath it, and whatever gets underneath it will get crushed.

Face facts here ... this is a case of operator error. There is no way to make the world fool-proof and perfectly safe. And if, sadly, the cyclist had simply paid attention to the truck ... we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Nobody wants to “blame the victim” but it’s not about blame or victims. The cyclist ignored a traffic signal and paid the price. If we refuse to identify the issue we cannot really address it.

We all make mistakes while riding. Almost always the result is nothing but a close call and a spike of adrenaline. Sometimes it is a fatal accident.

You want to Learn from this? You like to solve problems with laws? (Laws have done such awesome stuff to prevent murder, sex crimes, burglary, auto theft, racism, and other forms of discrimination ... )

Lessons I learned: trucks could have more obvious turn indicators mounted more visibly somewhere besides the back of the cab and the back of the trailer.

That’s it.

A few simple flashing lights.

The cyclist would have Not missed the fact that the truck was turning ... or if she did, it would have been more obvious that she simply wasn’t paying attention.

A couple posts (at least one, but I am not going back) mentioned this ... . most were eager to blame someone—and it is the only Positive outcome anyone has bothered to derive.

Preventing a repetition of this event in the simplest possible way matter to anyone? Every tuck owner can afford a few feet of wire, a few bolt-on light fixtures, a few relays and junctures. Turn signals at two places along each side of the trailer frame, and turn signals extending out from the back of the cab high enough not to clip pedestrians ... this accident would likely never have happened.

If we do not learn from history, we repeat it.

unterhausen

boy, that's a really long post to quote just one sentence, so I'm not going to do it. There are side guards for trucks which would likely have saved this cyclist's life. IIRC, they are slowly being mandated for trucks which operate in urban areas. Portland has something regarding this, but I don't know if it would have included this truck and I am pretty sure the mandate will only take effect in the future.

I question the need for that truck to be there. Ban big trucks in that area and make them apply for special permits. Have people riding the sideboards looking for people. Police escort. Lead car front and back. make it hard enough to do that people will use the right equipment for the job.

GrainBrain

Since posting last night and thinking on it, the angrier I have become at the trucker. He was most certainly guilty of being too hurried. Watching the video again, it almost seems inevitable that a crash would've been highly likely - either between the cyclist or another vehicle that might have shot the gap to turn right. Watch as he cuts almost clear into the left lane, leaving no part of his tractor trailer even in the right turn lane! RECKLESS as he passed the intersection once, so he should have been formulating a game plan better then what he executed.

How would a good truck driver had handled that?

- maintain control of the right turn lane he was using, by turning into it.

- Stopping at the green light, then waiting for the light to turn red.

- As cross traffic clears, and as cross traffic gets close to receiving the yellow, begin into the intersection. Here's where it gets tricky, and as a driver you use the size of the vehicle to command use of the road for a moment.

- proceed into the intersection as the cross traffic is yellow and then red. The goal here is to block cross traffic before the lanes fill up.

There may be lots of honking and irate drivers but that's ok. Because at least everyone saw and understood your intentions.

I could see a civil suit resulting from this. If he had at least kept some the rig in the right turn lane this wouldn't have happened.

Now for the cyclist, look at this weird bike lane setup. She was not in the bike lane when the accident occurred. Notice at the beginning of the video there is a cyclist properly in the bike lane, who continues thru the intersection to probably where the bike lane is on the far right.

At first I thought the doctor was turning right but now I believe she was aiming for the bike lane across the intersection. Ugh now I watched it again I dunno.

Rewatching the video take note of the white car ahead of the semi that does the exact same RECKLESS right turn. It could be at this moment that the semi driver was distracted by this.

Once again as Jim from Boston commented, it's really up to us as cyclists to watch out for our own lives. I'm going to buy some kind of rear view mirror for myself today.

Ninety5rpm

I hold the cycling community primarily at fault. Anyone who downplays the significance of the role each cyclist plays in his or her own safety is partially responsible.

It's like there is this unstated desire to paint cycling as this quaint and wonderful activity that is unfairly blemished by the occasional irresponsible motorist. And pointing out the rules (and yeah, they're rules) and practices one can follow to greatly reduce their risk somehow ruins that painting.

The truck already passed her on the bridge, completely. Later, in her final minute of life, the truck was stopped a red light and she caught up with it, and started to pass it. At that point the truck started to accelerate, so she was unable to complete the pass. But the truck driver did not accelerate too much, knowing he was to make that right turn, so their speeds were about the same. Just before the collision she was about even with the cab. She spent a long long long time -- 16 seconds -- riding alongside a truck on its blindside. No cyclist should EVER do this. EVER. The moment you find yourself in that position next to a moving truck, or any vehicle for that matter, you have to hit the brakes and get the F behind it. Every single cyclist should not only know this, but it should be ingrained in their reflexes.

Just this morning driving my car to work I was coming upon a bus and a right turn. I was in the right most lane, the bus was too. As we approached the turn, it changed lanes, but that lane also allowed right turns and it turned right from that lane. While making the turn I realized that I had caught up with the bus before the turn and could have easily passed, but instinctively held back. It wasn't conscious. My instinct was to complete the turn behind the bus and then quickly accelerate and pass after we completed the turn and were on a straight road again.

In the OP I linked to the page that describes what cyclists should know about trucks. If this cyclist had been familiar with the content of that page, she'd almost certainly be alive today. Information and safe practices can save far more cyclist lives than billions of dollars of infrastructure and motorist education. That's what we should be pushing, but there is precious little of that in the cycling community. Even on this A&S forum.

Ninety5rpm

+1

Blaming the motorist no matter how much he is to blame is practically pointless for cycling safety.

Focusing on what cyclists have to do to not suffer a similar fate, that's gold for cycling safety.

avole

I can't help thinking there's a bit of 'blame the victim' going on here. Also, perhaps truck drivers should do a 'truckiesavvy' course, as I would think the responsibility being shared to a greater or lesser degree in cases like this.

Ninety5rpm

Suggesting a r@pe victim contributed to causing the assault by wearing a skirt is WRONGLY blaming the victim.
Suggesting a right hook victim contributed to causing the crash by riding alongside a moving truck is pointing out how other cyclists can avoid a similar fate.

If you don't see the difference, shame on you.

Ninety5rpm

@avole and all, not seeing the difference, and treating these the same, and shaming those of us who do see the difference and advocate accordingly, is why I blame much of the cycling community. I'm not picking on you. I'm pretty sure most of the cycling community including most here are inclined to agree with your sentiments. That's the problem.

Nobody is going to protect us. We have to protect ourselves. We have to teach each other and encourage each other to learn. It's not that hard, but if we pretend there is nothing to learn or we shouldn't have to learn anything, then we've got no one to blame but ourselves.

The way most cyclists ride, the accepted norms, put us at higher risk than necessary. Most cyclists are outraged by this video because they can see themselves doing the same thing. They don't cringe when they watch it the first time and see her riding alongside that truck. It all looks and feels normal to them. It shouldn't! Seeing a cyclist do that should make them cringe! Only if they have the proper understanding of risk around trucks to genuinely cringe as soon as they see that cyclist, or any cyclist, riding alongside a truck like that, will they have the internal mechanisms to keep them from doing it themselves.

That's where we need to be headed, not crashing into each other and who knows what else for "blaming the victim".

CliffordK

This shouldn't be about blame the victim or blame the driver.

A tragic accident occurred. Presumably the police investigation determined that there was no egregious law violation, although one could nitpick a few safety issues that could have been improved by the driver.

So now we're left with a dead cyclist, and a truck driver that likely has nightmares of an accidental death.

But this leaves us with many questions from which we all can learn without the "blame game".

• Could the driver have prevented this? Probably... see above. Slow down, watch traffic, watch for bikes, etc.
• Could the cyclist have prevented this? Probably... see above. Don't hang out in a truck's blind spot. Turn with the truck, look for, and pay attention to signals, etc.
• Could the City have prevented this? I think the sharrows were a recent addition recognizing the potential risk in the intersection. The new paint shows the bike lane more clearly, but unfortunately doesn't alleviate the risk of cars turning right across a bike lane.
• Could the freight company have prevented this? It isn't clear that the load required a full length semi truck, and scheduling during high traffic. A single axle truck might have been sufficient, and far more maneuverable in the city.
• Ok, back to the city & state... freight regulations? Size and time of day restrictions? Requiring breaking up loads before inner city deliveries. Permits + lead/follow cars?
• Could DOT have prevented this? Mandating round mirrors, side sensors and warnings, cameras, low passenger door windows, etc. Also more visible/noticeable turn signals including potentially a buzzer and bright strobes. Also consider side shields. Trailers could easily include even rudimentary steered axles as has been used in the logging industry for well over a half century. Perhaps even design a "city fleet" with stinger steering, and mandate changing from long-haul to inner city rigs.

As forum members, we can bellyache about the driver's actions, but we're far better served with looking for ways to improve the situation in the future, and to get the word out to fellow cyclists of how to be safe on the roads. Get the word out to our governments on what they need to do to make the roads safer for all. This could have just as easily been a Smart Car that was crushed as a cyclist.

avole

I think everybody understands the difference. The analogy was unnecessarily extreme to the point of being irrelevant.

My point was and is , assuming the truck driver hadat least partial responsibility for what happened, if cycle savvy might have helped the cyclist, would not truckie savvy have helped the driver?

The post above summarises the position well.

Maelochs

Truth. That was exactly how I reacted.

Thanks for this.

If neither party is faultless, then both could have done better, right? I don't drive a truck, but I have ridden a bike in Every kind of traffic on the U.S. continent. I could not understand, watching the video, what the cyclist was doing.

In a perfect world, All cyclists would avoid being in that situation. The reason being, the potential for this outcome.

Maybe, if I were a truck driver, I would be cringing when I saw the guy making that turn ... but while it might have been other than optimal, it was not illegal. And legal or not --- It's A Truck. It's big, and heavy, and metal, and if there is any sort of collision No one else will come away in good shape.

For the truck, better (more visible) turn signals. For All cyclists, situational awareness is a lifesaver.

I don't want to "blame" anyone, unless laws were broken. I want never to have to see another video like this.

02Giant 

This is absolutely absurd.

79pmooney

Minor points - "Again, if the lane was clear when he put his signal on, the fact that he signaled a turn should have warned anyone from trying to sneak by on the inside." I couldn't see the cyclist prior to 12 seconds before the crash. At that point, the cyclist was beside the trailer, not behind.

And "Well, if the lane was clear ..." In Oregon, bicycles are considered vehicles. I think that is true of Massachusetts but it has been a long time since I lived there. I believe the lane the cyclist was in was a designated bike lane. A lane set aside for a type of vehicle is a traffic lane, is it not? By law, at least in Oregon, you have to yield to traffic in the lane beside you before you cross it to make a turn. (It is worded specifically for bicycles also, making for redundancy but I won't argue that point.)

They, the cyclist and the trailer, were overlapped a full truck and trailer length BEFORE the truck entered the intersection. Are there any states where you can legally initiate a turn, cross another lane on your right and wipe out a vehicle that has been there the whole time?

I know full well how difficult it is for that truck driver to pull off the turn he did on those streets. I wouldn't want his job. But that doesn't make him legally "right". This should have the truck manufactures, companies and unions searching for better answers.

Yes, the cyclist needed to be more aware. My best friend's dad told us that scenario was quick death when we were 13. I saw that truck in front of me 11 years ago. (Smaller single dump truck but it would have done the job just fine.) I lived only because I had an angel sitting in the passenger seat.

Ben

Ninety5rpm

Blaming a r@pe victim for dressing inappropriately is the quintessential example of "blaming the victim". It's not extreme.

"One example of a sexist allegation against female victims of sexual assault is that wearing provocative clothing stimulates sexual aggression in men who believe that women wearing body-revealing clothes are actively trying to seduce a sexual partner. Such accusations against victims stem from the assumption that sexually revealing clothing conveys consent for sexual actions, irrespective of willful verbal consent. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming

Labeling discussion about how the victim's behavior contributed to the tragedy as "blaming the victim" is not making the point that the truck driver has at least partial responsibility for what happened, which I don't see anyone here denying. Certainly not me. It's going far beyond that. It's suggesting the cyclist's behavior did not contribute at all to the collision, and we shouldn't even talk about it (much less learn from it).

Perhaps you didn't realize it, but you're effectively saying that suggesting riding alongside trucks increases likelihood of right hooks is victim blaming like suggesting that wearing provocative clothing increases likelihood of r@pe.

Very different.

CliffordK

I don't think it is so absurd. Many roads, as well as bridges are closed to big rigs.

Some fuel deliveries are restricted by time of day. Nukes?

There are some things like telephone poles that require long trailers, but it is unclear if the load that was being carried was one of them. Weight laws sometimes require distributed wheels, but carrying the load forward in the video would indicate that greater weight was being applied to the cab than the trailer, and thus not likely an overweight load, and more likely a larger trailer than necessary.

There is no reason why shipping companies can't use hubs on the edge of town and transfer loads to appropriate trucks whenever possible, especially for palatalized loads. There are a few hand-loads that are difficult to transfer, but that is a minority of the business.

Had a trailer half the length been used, with closely spaced rear axles, or even a flatbed truck without trailer, the truck driver likely wouldn't have had to pull left so far, and perhaps would have even turned into the right turn lane/area. And the cyclist would have had more of an ability to react.

Jim from Boston

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ninety5rpm

...The way most cyclists ride, the accepted norms, put us at higher risk than necessary. Most cyclists are outraged by this video because they can see themselves doing the same thing. They don't cringe when they watch it the first time and see her riding alongside that truck. It all looks and feels normal to them. It shouldn't! Seeing a cyclist do that should make them cringe!

Only if they have the proper understanding of risk around trucks togenuinely cringe as soon as they see that cyclist, or any cyclist, ridingalongside a truck like that, will they have the internal mechanisms to keep them from doing it themselves.

That's where we need to be headed, not crashing into each other and who knows what else for "blaming the victim".

Quote:

Originally Posted by FBinNY

…So, many of us might have made an adjustment on a hunch, or at least have been on high alert for a possible turn. It's possible the cyclist was less experienced, or misread the trucks move to the left, not knowing he was positioning for a wide right, or.....

When I first watched that video I had a similar reaction as Ninety5rpm comments…I might have possibly tried to outride that truck too, especially since the streets were so familiar.

In fact, I must confess that soon after that accident, but perhaps without a fully formed aphorism in my mind, I attempted a similar maneuver in front of an upcoming bus, knowing it was there. Indeed the bus did turn right, but I stopped short and was safe. I think my aphorism was incubating in my mind, and it became fully entrenched since that incident happened directly to me.

It is still very firm in my memory, because on that unforgettable ride I was showing a (well-known) fellow BF subscriber around town, Fortunately he was well behind me and did not follow my lead, and likely did not see it, or at least did not mention it to me.

CliffordK

Did he bid you adieu, and that was the last you ever saw of him?

Ninety5rpm

At best, this adds complexity and expense that must be borne by everyone.

Wouldn't it make more sense to ensure everyone knows not to ride alongside other vehicles?

I remind you, she was riding there for a full 16 seconds, and probably had no idea the potential peril she was in the entire time. Right now, most cyclists probably don't understand it either. Shouldn't we work to change that? I mean, the odds of getting trucks banned everywhere are slim, and it's not just trucks that are the problem anyway (they're just most likely to overlook and cause fatal injuries). So wouldn't such efforts be a waste of time and resources, keeping us from focusing on ensuring that all cyclists know how to protect against right hooks?

Jim from Boston

After we reached our destination, we had a delightful dinner, and he left for a long multi-day car ride to get home. He and I both posted about that ride on BF, and he did send me a gracious follow-up PM.

All my visitors have a great time here. Not to brag, but e.g.despite your impressions of The Olde Towne from this thread.

Maelochs

The "ban trucks" idea is a Good idea, but like any real idea, it cannot exist in a vacuum.

If semis are not allowed on city streets, a Lot of changes will have to be made. A lot of jhobs will be created, and a lot of other jobs will be crimped. And it will cost a Lot of tax dollars and private investment to make the changesd.

Think it through---warehouses which would have to be city-owned (if the city is banning truck traffic) where semis can offload for local delivery services. But What local delivery services? They don;'t exist yet. And while that truck might have seemed empty, it also could have been on its way (early in the morning) to pick up a load which couldn't fit on a smaller truck, or which needed to go cross-country.

Stopping to off load, reload, etc is very inefficient. it can be factored in but it is not going to be as efficient in every case.

if some stuff is too big to be moved on smaller trucks, then what? And who is going to pay the added cost to pick up stuff in small trucks, then reload that stuff onto big trucks?

Even more important--(has any one here worked shipping/receiving?) a lot of stuff comes packed on skids, and as a rule two skids fit side-by-side in the back of a semi. Small trucks carry a lot less ... so you might need two or four trucks or more to service one store and four of five more to service another, all with the load which would easily fit in one semi. So that is an eightfold increase in traffic. An eightfold increase in fuel, tires, wear on vehicles, and also manpower.

Can it be done? Sure, just like cities can be designed to work well car-free. But .. if the city isn't built to work without cars, trying to retrofit is usually very expensive, very inefficient, and ultimately unsuccessful.

In the same way a city which isn't designed to have all major truck traffic offload out of city limits and have all deliveries made by small trucks might find it very expensive.

So might the businesses. After all, who is going to buy all those small trucks?

For instance, 7-11 has a single semi service all the stores in a given region. If 7-11 had to build a bunch of warehouses, buy a fleet of small trucks, insure them fuel them get permits for a fuel depot, and build it, hires drivers, mechanics, and warehouse personnel, ... they might decide no to work that region. If the profit margin in say, Boston, was wiped out for decades to come trying to amortize the cost of all the new building and acquisition ... why not let smaller local stores take the business, and let them go broke, and concentrate on regions where profits were steady and the business environment were stable.

Not saying it could not be done. I am saying it is a very short sentence describing a very long and dificult and Expensive project.

Maelochs

Well, all the ones which made it out alive ...

avole

Absolute nonsense, that’s simply your fancy. Trying to twist things using extreme examples contributes little to the discussion. It’s a shames that subjects like this turn into endless streams of self justification. It would be nice if’ for once, you could admit there were possibilities than those you propse, and used serious debate to argue the points.

Anyway, that’s my last contribution to advocacy and safety. You’ll find me over at folding bikes or road bikes. Apologies for being so off topic, mods/admins, maybe it is me simply not understanding a part of US culture.

Maelochs

Everybody arguing at cross purposes, not even realizing what the other is debating ..

How many times do i have to repeat this line .....

"What we have here .... is failure .. to communicate."

Ninety5rpm

And I apologize for misunderstanding. I do have trouble getting your point sometimes, but always value your contributions.

I am curious to know what possibilities you think I'm not admitting to here. I suspect you might not be understanding something I said.