Chris516

I was just perusing the 'Memory' sticky, when I came across post #69 on page 3: https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...atements/page3

The post that was quoted, had a link to the story posted in the San Jose Mercury News. Since I couldn't find it at the specific link given, I decided to look through the paper's archives. What has happened since then, is pathetic. While these are only blurbs to the actually stories, I have them listed chronologically without the dates, just to show how the 'system' dropped the ball. This is what I found:

The worst of all those stories, is that the CHP was blaming the dead cyclist right from the very beginning. Before they had done any investigation.

B. Carfree

Dig a bit deeper if you want to be really depressed. I believe this trucker has been involved in two prior deaths. One was a motorist who allegedly swerved into him and the other was a classic right hook where the cyclist was, surprise, found to be at fault based solely on his killer's statements.

Chris516

Thank you for the updated info. What I posted, was what showed up on the archive search.

The trucker's prior behavior, just adds to the hostility from the CHP.

Digital_Cowboy

As has been asked numerous times how the bloody hell can the LEOs do a through and complete investigation if they've:

a) made up their mind that the cyclist was at fault (usually simply for having committed the "crime" of being a cyclist)
b) never talked to ALL parties involved
c) never talked to the witnesses who could back up the cyclists side of things

Schwinnrider

I was hit from behind by a driver in a dually truck. He was 100% at fault. The trooper(who, to his credit, wrote the driver a ticket for improper pass), told me that "I wouldn't ride my bike on that road" when he interviewed me in the ER.

Kinda like telling a **** victim she shouldn't have worn that short skirt.

It's crazy.

Chris516

It is almost as if, LEOs' look for a reason to blame a cyclist.

Don in Austin

Maybe the LEO is just expressing his opinion that the road is the type of place where some idiot in a truck will run into you. Maybe the LEO is correct. There are roads that I avoid, and I have expressed my opinion about them to fellow cyclists.

Don in Austin

Chris516

A motorized vehicle can run into/over a cyclist on any road. But if the cyclist feels confident enough to ride on a given road, they don't need an LEO, telling them it is dangerous. Because it is indirectly tantamount to telling a cyclist 'get off the road'.

Even bike paths are dangerous, but the general public thinks they are just fine. Just recently, there was a head-on collision between two cyclists, where one was passing some pedestrians on the trail, but didn't give audible notice and the cyclist just ahead of the pedestrians collided with him.

SBRDude

I disagree with your conclusion that the cop is indirectly telling the cyclist to get off the road. There is a difference between telling someone not to do something, and warning them about the dangers. Sometimes I warn my wife about slippery road conditions, but that doesn't mean I'm telling her (even indirectly) not to drive.

Digital_Cowboy

Don,

If you go back over the Trotwood v Selz case you'd see that that was the same "logic" that that officer used when she pulled over Mr. Selz. She in her judgement felt that the road was "too dangerous" for a person on a bicycle to be riding. And even after she had the law explained to her she said that if presented with the same situation that she'd do the same thing again.

Digital_Cowboy

Not that it should matter, but what kind of road was it?

To the mods what is wrong with the word ****? That it gets filtered?

10 Wheels

You may ask questions like that by using the report triangle.

Chris516

That is why I said 'indirectly tantamount'. It comes down to(just you used your wife as an example), not only how(and if), the LEO would say the same thing to motorist. But if they even want to say something to a motorist. While a bike weighs a lot less than a motorized vehicle, lack of weight n' size, pursuant to addressing bikers, could essentially be applied to motorists prior to their respective encounters with 25-ton 18-wheelers, 10-ton box trucks, and 10-ton garbage trucks.

SBRDude

You lost me...

CbadRider

That word gets used in titles for P&R threads, and it sets off filters at some people's workplaces. We had some complaints about it, so it was added to the censor.

Snowman219

And I should avoid downhill roads, bright daylight, 40mph, and...fresh green lights >.<

Why spoil the fun

Digital_Cowboy

Those companies are asinine. As it is also a popular seed found in bird seed mixes.

Chris516

What I was getting at is, the LEO not only preferring to say something to the cyclist, instead of the motorist. The officer treating the person with the smaller vehicle, almost as if they are inhuman, an annoyance, a bother.

That is what I meant with my analogy regarding rigs, box trucks, and garbage trucks. They will prefer to say something to the motorist, instead of the commercial driver.

Dchiefransom

It's a 35 mph two lane road mostly, but near I-280 it becomes a divided road. The truck would have had to merge into the on-ramp line by doing a normal lane change to the right. The cyclists would be riding along the right side of the road, and have to merge to the left a bit. I haven't been up there lately, but the through lane is wide and narrows to one lane, leaving cyclists a wide area to ride in between the through lane and the on-ramp lane. Even if they painted bike lanes through there, the problem is drivers and cyclists not paying attention before they make their move right or left. There are no other witnesses. If she was out in front and moving to the left, the truck might not have slowed down to wait to cut over. Many large truck drivers don't seem to want to reduce their forward motion unless they absolutely have to.

david58

Could it be that the officer was offering truly "friendly advice"? Maybe he wasn't treating you as inferior, but actually was concerned for your well being.

ummm, nahhh.....

SBRDude

OK, I understand now. I still disagree that it's an effort by the LEO to tell a cyclist not to ride there, but more of a warning to be mindful of real dangers. In an ideal world, the LEO would stop lots of motorists and equally warn them to be safe around cyclists, but in practice it's just easier to warn the cyclist.

RaleighSport

Random thought: You ever think LEO's know they can't get us off the roads but are tired of having to peel fellow humans off it and not be able to arrest the "killers"?

Chris516

Do you realize what you just said? You invariably said that, while it easier to warn the cyclist in this situation, it is also easier to blame the cyclist in a bike-motorist collision.

I know they are two different situations, but the continual behavior would be somehow always addressing the cyclist instead of and/or the motorist.

Chris516

I would entertain that thought, IF, really wanted to make a concentrated effort for the cyclist's safety. LEO's don't pull over motorists to tell them to be careful when they are next to rigs, box trucks' n' garbage trucks. An LEO pulling someone over for a bit of 'friendly advice'.........nope.

Chris516

That's a given.