The Human Car

Action Alert: Accidents Involving Pedestrians Rise In Balt. Co.

[B' Spokes: This article makes my blood boil, too many pedestrians and cyclists are "at fault" because the road was designed only for cars and dangerous for everyone else. Part two what's the point of having laws to protect cyclists rights to the road if police never learn them or even bother to read the law as they pertain to cyclists? After the fold is the email address of Baltimore County Police.]

************************************************************************************
By Suzanne Collins

BALTIMORE COUNTY, Md. (WJZ) ...
...
Pedestrian accidents, especially fatal ones, are way up in Baltimore County.

They involve bicyclists, joggers, and people on foot.

From 2006 through 2008 an average of 15 people were killed [per year.] Last year that rose to 19.

In the first four months of this year already eight have died. If that rate continues, there could be 24 deaths before year's end.

"What we're finding is, of those accidents involving a pedestrian, that generally the pedestrian is at fault," said James Johnson, Chief Baltimore Co. Police.

The police report shows the truck driver in Tuesday's crash may not be at fault.

Police say the bicyclist wasn't wearing a helmet [as the law allows,] and they believe he was riding in the middle of the car lane [***as the law recommends.***] They also say the driver probably had a blind spot when he came over the hill [as if the hill makes the cyclists at fault.]

A group promoting bicycling says its riders observe traffic rules, but drivers need to know of a new law.

"Drivers need to know to give cyclists three feet when passing, which is a safe passing distance," said Carol Silldorff, One Car Less.

And if it's a narrow road, Silldorff still says drivers should be accountable.

"You wait, just like if you were passing a child," she said.

Because of the rising number of fatals, county police have been out giving warnings to pedestrians who violate traffic laws. They will kick off an education campaign soon.

"Certainly both the pedestrian and the motor vehicle operator have responsibility here. Obviously a pedestrian has responsibility to obey traffic laws not cross in areas that are dangerous," said Johnson.

In two bike fatalities so far this year and several serious injuries, they were riding outside the beltway mostly on rural roads without sidewalks.

The county also is working to engineer its roadways to accommodate both forms of transportation.
https://wjz.com/local/pedestrian.acci...2.1679674.html
************************************************************************************

If you are as outraged as I am e-mail: bcpd@baltimorecountymd.gov and cc'ing the County Executive would not hurt either, jimsmith@baltimorecountymd.gov

The laws as applicable to this case:

§ 21-1205. Riding on roadways or on highway.
(a) Riding to right side of roadway.- Each person operating a bicycle or a motor scooter at a speed less than the speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing on a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable and safe, ***except when:***
(6) Operating in a lane that is ***too narrow*** for a bicycle or motor scooter and another vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane [such as Belair Rd]

§ 21-1207.1. Helmets required.
(a) In general.-
(1) The provisions of this section apply:
(ii) To a person ***under the age of 16*** who is riding on a bicycle, including a person under the age of 16 who is a passenger on a bicycle:

Juan Foote

I am not sure I see why you are so "angry" over this. A truck came over a blind hill and struck a cyclist who was in the middle of the car lane and didn't have a helmet on. Accidents happen, and where they involve a several ton truck and a few hundred pound cyclist...well, you do the math. Buddy should have been more aware of the fact that he was riding over a blind hill and been at the shoulder of the road, so that perhaps the truck could have avoided him, just common sense. Having a helmet on "might" have saved his life too...but IDK the details pertaining to his injury.

Kneejerk reaction on your part if you ask me...going off half cocked just because it involved a cyclist. Cyclists can be dumbasses and at fault too ya know.

njkayaker

The statistics are somewhat shaky (not uncommon for newspaper articles).

What does the actual data look like? How does it vary? What is the distribution of fatalities during the year in other years (maybe, more fatalities occur in the first 4 months of the year)? Has the rate of death per cyclist increased (maybe, there has been an increase in cycling overall)? Is the projected 24 fatalities a fluke (that is, it might just be randomly high)? Were there any abnormally low fatality numbers (that is, regression to the mean)?

A few strict VC'ers would say that this is impossible and never can happen!!

Because (among other things) it isn't at all clear that what the article says and implies reflects reality. The article is constructed like a "bogus trend" story, where the writer stitches together some anecdotes and bad statistics to "prove" a trend that doesn't actually exist!

It also is implying that the cyclist in this collision is at fault (it manages to avoid actually stating that). One purpose of mentioning that the cyclist did not wear a helmet is to paint the cyclist as "irresponsible".

ghettocruiser

You might have way too much faith in your "common sense".

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/mar...tory?track=rss

SCROUDS

I'm with punkncat. S**t happens man.

Juan Foote

This is true. Things that "seem" smart don't occur to everyone. There is a serious shortage of it everywhere.

phoebeisis

Cars drive 35-50 mph- bikes go 5-20 mph. It is inherently risky for vehicles to use the same road when one is doing 30 mph more than the other.

The reason to ride far right on such a road(most roads)- even if you interpret the law to allow you to take the entire lane- is so when the motor vehicle suddenly notices you he won't have to veer and or brake much to miss you , if you are far right.If you are taking the lane- he'll have to swing much wider to miss you.

Yes, you can complain that cars should allow you the lane-BUT THEY DON'T!! Yes, they should give us 3 feet, but they frequently don't.

Don't "take the lane" on rural highways-especially when you are going around curves, or topping hills.

Keep far right in rural areas.-. Taking a lane is OK in cities.The speeds are much lower, the speed differences are much less, and drivers expect to see bikes.

Mixing bicycles with much higher speed(and huge) vehicles is always going to be a bit dangerous for the bike. Fellow road users are very average, and they are using cell phones/texting/putting on makeup.

Yes, he should have worn a helmet-not that it would have mattered much in this case.
Charlie

RazrSkutr

Then you should stay off the road because you've just blurted out that you see nothing wrong with driving around a blind curve without taking due care that there *might* be something you can't see (duh). That could be anything: a previous crash, an animal, a broken down vehicle that hasn't cleared to the shoulder yet, a cyclist. If you can't see then proceed with caution. Jesus, I really hope you don't have a license.

Yeah sure. Despite the fact that helmets are explicitly NOT designed to cope with being struck by motor vehicles at high speeds it *might* have made a difference.


Right back at you.

ghettocruiser

So your common sense told you that the cyclist should have been riding on the shoulder, and when I googled the details of the accident to see if there was a shoulder, I got another accident from the same town two weeks ago where a cyclist riding on the shoulder of the road was killed by a car driving on the shoulder of the road.

You see what I mean about the risks of common sense?

genec

Yup, I've had discussions with those of the strict VC set and that is exactly what they say.

ItsJustMe

It's the responsibility of any vehicle operator to be able to stop in time to avoid hitting any obstacle in the road, even if it's a person standing still in the middle of the road, even over a blind hill. Not being able to stop in time is the DEFINITION of 'driving too fast for conditions' - in this case, conditions includes a blind hill. I'd be willing to bet that the blind hill was signed for a pretty low speed, and the truck was far exceeding it. I see people around here going over blind hills that are marked "short visibility distance" and often 35 MPH or less, and they fly over the hill doing 50+ mph (the road leading to the hills is generally marked 50 MPH).

The cyclist is 0% at fault here. He's riding in exactly the right place, the truck driver had even MORE time time stop than he should have needed as the cyclist was going in the same direction; he is by law required to go slow enough to stop even for something standing still in the road.

Juan Foote

It is unfortunate to us cyclists that cars (drivers) think they own the road, and commonly drive dangerously on them. As a cyclist the best we can do is be wary, aware of our surroundings, and have on proper safety equipment (like a helmet). All the *****ing and moaning about it in the world isn't going to change the fact that we choose to participate in an activity in which we have to share the road with these maniacs from time to time. In that situation, cyclists do come out on the bad end from time to time.

I seriously doubt that the truck driver feels good about what happened...it was an accident...that may well have been avoided had the cyclist taken some defensive measures....say like not riding in the middle of the road. Right or not doesn't matter when you are dead.

The Human Car

To the best of my knowledge there is no shoulder on Belair Rd till way past the beltway. And FWIW I am not upset that **** happens but for the reasons why the police are saying the truck is not at fault.

The Human Car

I will also note that per the video it looks like it happened on the overpass or a bridge, none of which have such extreme curvature to block a cyclists from view in time to react (unless the driver was distracted.)

njkayaker

You are missing the point. The article is not about this one specific accident. The article mentions this one specific accident to make general points about all cyclists.

It's possible that this one cyclist was careless or stupid (we don't know!). But that doesn't mean that all cyclists are careless and stupid.

genec

While I agree with most of what you say, I doubt that the hill was signed for a lower speed... I have seen countless such blind spots and rarely are they given lower speeds... and as you say, far too often motorists work to drive at the speed limit (as if it is some specified "must drive speed") than drive at a speed for the conditions.

Far too often motorists assume that the road ahead is clear and open to them. And far too often motorists are exceeding the speed limit in the first place. It frustrates the heck out of me when I drive in a safe manner and below the speed limits, that others following chose to tailgate vice consider the conditions. Whatever happened to the 2 second rule?

bmclaughlin807

I hope to GOD you don't have a driver's license.

ItsJustMe

I was taught a THREE second rule. I've heard people lately say that they thought it was ONE second, and I rarely see drivers even giving that much space. Most of the drivers around here seem to be observing about a 400 millisecond rule; keep in mind that the average response time to put on the brakes is between 600ms and 1 second.

Juan Foote

Yeah, yeah, I know...I am a stupid dip**** for thinking that a cyclist MIGHT have been at fault for getting himself killed riding in the middle of the road on a cycling forum. And I must drive like some kind of stupid maniac all the time just for seeing another point of view on this, that differs from some of yours.

****ing idiots.

genec

I was originally taught one car length for every 10MPH of speed... 2 seconds is easier to check... 3 seconds is better... 400 milliseconds is about right for some of these idiots... and the worst part is that some chose to tailgate so they can use a cell phone.

dougmc

Dunno about Maryland, but Austin, TX just passed a three foot passing law (well, six months ago, a while after Governor Hairdo vetoed a statewide bill.)

Ever since, it seems like every single time there's an accident, the story mentions the law. Which would be fine if the story involved buzzing a cyclist at least than 3' -- but it never does. Instead, the accidents are caused by failure to yield, running a red light or stop sign, improper lane change, opening a door without due car, driving too fast for conditions, drunk driving, etc. -- laws that have all been in place for a long time.

To make matters worse, many cycling advocates ask why the driver wasn't cited for violating the 3' passing law -- when it clearly didn't apply (it was a right hook, left hook, the cyclist was overrun, etc.) and get mad at the police for "not enforcing it". (Though it's certainly not often enforced. I think in six months one ticket has been written? But to be fair, it's a difficult law to enforce, and if there is an accident, there's almost always a more serious charge that can be used.)

Well, that's my gripe.

One more thing about this story bugs me --

Nice job, Silldorff. You've just reinforced the idea that only children ride bikes.

noisebeam

A few general comments (not specific as I don't know the specifics)
-often when people talk about a cyclist in the 'middle of the lane' they mean they are riding anywhere to the left of the fog line lane'?
-While hills create blind spots, both the approaching vehicle and the cyclist are moving. Blind spots are most an issue for static objects in the road. A driver paying proper attention can see a vehicle ahead before it travels into the blind zone. Also trucks tend to have higher seating and mimimize hill blind spots. It would take a very steep drop off after a summit for a true blind spot that could not be easily addressed thru prudent speed and watching the road ahead prior to reaching the crest of the hill where one would note if another vehicle was in sight before they crested.

By law conditions must be considered for reasonable speed over hills.
"The maximum speed provided in this section is reduced to the speed that is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and with regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing, including the following conditions:
1. Approaching and crossing an intersection or railroad crossing.
2. Approaching and going around a curve.
3. Approaching a hillcrest.
4. Traveling on a narrow or winding roadway.
5. A special hazard exists with respect to pedestrians or other traffic or by reason of weather or highway conditions."

genec

Of course the key words in what you say are "driver paying proper attention," "prudent speed," and "watching the road ahead." Now how does all that factor in with speeding motorists and cell phones? (just to name one possible distraction)

As you and I have long discussed... most motorists do not drive like you and I, but like they are trying to win some race, and with minimal attention.

noisebeam

Gene, I was giving points potentially related to who should be at fault: Not the cyclist!

I use a mirror and would be certain I was very aware of any rear approaching vehicle(s), how far back and their general speed as I crested and dropped into a momentary blind spot. The mirror also helps me know if I am in or starting to move into blind spot or not.

Doohickie

Traffic code states that any vehicle that is overtaking another vehicle is responsible for safely passing the vehicle. Even if the cyclist was in the middle of the "car lane" (a misnomer), it was the truck driver's fault.

Sheesh.