bronco71

Exactly my point, thanks. I know this location and it is possible for cyclists to preserve their own lives at this intersection by avoiding drivers who screwed up. I doubt this poor woman had that opportunity. Also, I recognize where the bike ended up. Assuming it wasn't hit again, he really nailed her.

jon c. 

79 I would agree with you, but those I've known who are sharp, active and in killer shape at 80 simply can't make 90 without a noticeable decline in physical capacity. Including the ability to drive nearly as well as they could a decade earlier.

curbtender

Lots of speculation. Could be a front flat and fall into the cars path.

bronco71

Nope, she got run down in the blue bike lane.

genec

Is it just me, or are the "sharks tooth" markings on the lane to the right, backwards?

genec

Yeah but when the motorist looks straight ahead, in the direction of travel, they face not one, but two yield signs and two bicycle signs... one might think all those signs would be enough to tell a motorist that there is likely to be a cyclist there... about the only other thing that could be done is a toll gate like affair that would stop a motorist completely.

genec

I don't think it is an issue of false security from a bike lane... Anyone entering a major road like that has to give way to traffic on that road to enter... and the motorist failed to do just that.

dynodonn 

While some motorists, in merging, are savvy in yielding to through traffic, but other motorists' merging maneuvers are just flat breathtaking to watch.

FBinNY 

I agree, and it's obvious that the motorist had enough reminders that he had to be aware of bicyclists and the need to yield (which he would have needed to do even if there were no signage).

However, even when others are 100% at fault, it still falls on cyclists to be aware of the risks that result from inattentive or uncaring drivers. My personal approach to potentially dangerous intersections is to not depend on the driver, and ride not only so they won't hit me if they don't see me, but so they couldn't hit me even if they tried.

This doesn't mean that I cede my right of way, just that I use timing, or confirm as well as possible that the driver is in fact slowing and preparing to yield.

IMO tight of way and fault are all things for the lawyers to debate after a collision. My goal is to avoid the collision in the first place.

bronco71

Since I drive by that spot every morning anyway. I took a few extra minutes and drove the route the driver in this case would have followed. There simply isn't any way that an attentive driver should have missed the cyclist being there. She should have been visible to him when he was around 500 feet from the intersection with a widening field of view. He messed up big time.

FBinNY 

I don't think anyone is saying any different here.

The question isn't whether he messed up, but trying to understand how and why, and what factors might have contributed.

Also, while many or even most cyclists may ask "how could he not have seen the cyclist?" the reality is that not registering a cyclist is easier than one may imaging. It's a problem that also plagues motorcyclists, and won't go away no matter how much we wish it would. This article might be enlightening on the subject, and there are many others if one searches.

bronco71

Emphasis mine.

We may never know. I still don't feel, from a cyclists point of view, that that intersection is an extreme hazard. I will continue to ride through there, though admittedly I will think of this incident as I do.

genec

Agreed... as vulnerable road users, we have to work 100% "to avoid the collision in the first place." It would be nice if the other road users put in the same sort of effort...

CliffordK

Whew, finally off the mobile, and can browse the maps

Those kinds of fast merges are inherently dangerous for bikes. One can attribute 100% of the fault to the motorist, but unless we're living by the code of Hammurabi, the result of a bad accident is that the cyclist dies and the driver lives.

A stop sign for the driver would make the maneuver more dangerous for all vehicles on the road, although there do appear to be full traffic signals at other places along Sunrise Dr, but at this intersection, traffic is expected to merge at the speed of other vehicles on Sunrise Dr.

I don't pass a lot of fast merges without stops/lights, although yesterday in Albany I passed a freeway off-ramp opening onto a mutl-lane road (I5 --> 99E (SE Pacific)). My bike lane/shoulder just ended, and resumed on the other side. No green stripes or other traffic control features. The natural tendency is to look behind me. I saw a car coming off the exit FAST. So, I simply stopped, let it pass, then quickly crossed and resumed my ride. No arguing about right-of-way.

Also, in Salem, I was riding along the Willamette Valley Scenic Bikeway. In one place, I had a stop sign crossing a typical 2 lane, 2 way street through traffic, no stop signs. The car to the right stopped for me (sometimes they do in Oregon). But, I did not go until the car to the right passed, NOT STOPPING. The right-of-way for bikes on the street is a little ambiguous. What is not ambiguous is that one can not proceed until it is safe to do so.

Anyway, for the Arizona path, I would route bicycles across that merge lane at a 90° angle, and give it a STOP (but allow SAFE rolling stops). You can still tell cars to yield to cyclists, but the bikes shouldn't ever proceed until it is safe for them to do so.

dynodonn 

Agree whole heartedly, and this is the area where my wish is that motorists had pain sensors connected from their body to the exterior of their vehicle, driving a motor vehicle would be viewed in a whole new light.

genec

Why? The bikes are on the main thoroughfare and you are choosing to stop the bikes while the cars on the minor road get a pass... should be the other way around... the cars should come to a complete stop. Sunrise, the road the bikes are on, is a 4 lane major road (two lanes either way). Skyline, the intersecting road, however is a minor 2 lane road (one lane either way). It is traditional for traffic entering a major road from a minor road to give way to the traffic on the major road.

curbtender

One accident like this discourages a lot of potential riders. Too bad.

jeichelberg87

The 89 year old driver knew exactly what happened. And even at that age, he will probably not admit he ran over that lady on purpose. Some people simply need to be put out of their misery so they can quit sharing in this fashion.

I approach merges like this by slowing down, moving as FRAP, and making sure I have the attention of all cars looking to merge. I glare at them until I get some acknowledgement. Wave, yell, make as much noise as possible. Then I proceed expeditiously through that merge lane and continue to maintain a FRAP position through the entire merge lane. Pretty much like the photo; however...

The bike lane should not even approach the merge lane and should remain firmly in the right hand lane.

IDEALLY, the bike lane should have SWITCHED to the far left side of the left lane in this four lane siutation whenever traffic is merging from the right in these types of situations.

bronco71

There is absolutely no evidence to support this inflammatory statement and it isn't at all helpful to the discussion. Next time you feel the need to post something like that without supporting data to back up your position, don't.

jeichelberg87

Yeah, there is evidence. Look at the intersection. The lanes are marked. There are no obvious blind spots. There are yield signs in place.

So, it is your opinion he accidentally ran over the lady? Just how does that work? Explain it.

bronco71

Nevermind, on the ignore list you go.

CliffordK

FBinNY has given a good explanation of the divided attention required for merging, with a significant amount of attention directed to the traffic coming from behind.

There was no volition.

Mandatory retesting of the elderly or taking away licenses is very controversial, but I think would be appropriate in this case, perhaps in every case involving fatalities with drivers of all ages.

My experience is that in most places bikes are a minor constituent of the traffic on the road. This is apparently the first bicycle fatality at this intersection. I don't know how many close calls or injury accidents there have been.

As has been mentioned, the bike SHOULD have the right-of-way. And, the driver has to take 100% of the fault. However, the assignment of fault is pretty irrelevant to the person laying in the morgue.

So, should you interrupt one cyclist forcing them to verify they have a safe crossing vs 100 cars? Plus, the purpose of the merge is to get cars up to speed while merging onto the busy street.

Yes, I believe that cars still should yield to the bikes. But, the bikes also MUST verify safe passage before proceeding. If visibility is as good as some people are saying, the cyclist should have been able to see the car coming and simply waited for it to either stop (as it should have) or pass by. Then a 90° crossing would get the cyclist across the street as expeditiously as possible, and continuing down the road ALIVE.

jeichelberg87

Ah, the good old ignore system. I urge you to immediately drive to your nearest like situated merge opportunity with the good old ignore system approach. When you strike and kill/injure someone, you too can claim it was not done on purpose. It was done because you had others in the ignore category.

bronco71

You're a moron.

jeichelberg87

Oh really. Nice style of debate you have there.