Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Advocacy & Safety (http://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/)
-   -   Photos from fatal bike crash in Cincy this morning (http://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/842547-photos-fatal-bike-crash-cincy-morning.html)

BikeLawyer 08-30-12 09:22 PM

Some additional Factoids...
 
2 Attachment(s)
Interesting discussion on this crash. One of the QCB Board Members contacted me around 8am to tell me about the crash... a few minutes later he said the fellow had died. The crash site is a few miles from my home and he indicated police were still on scene, so I grabbed my camera gear, hopped on the Big Bike and rode down. I was able to shoot a number of pix from behind the police tape... later in the day, a few of us returned to the scene to place some flowers and look at the total scene. I didn't measure it off but the total distance of police paint [orange] was at least 50 yards. Most of the orange paint was right around the white line or to the right of the white line. I'm drafting a blog post on my ohiobikelawyer.com page which will probably go up later tonight or tomorrow for sure with additional photos.

Some "facts" and factors, from what I've been able to figure out or read about:
1. Crash was around 615 am - so lights legally required. It appears the rider had lights but we're waiting for the official police report. Also, in addition to pre-dawn light, there were two large streetlights in the area which would have spread large cones of light at the scene of the impact. If the cyclist did NOT have lights I think we would have heard about it -
2. This is an extremely well used area of town for cycling. My understanding is that the motorist was on his way to work and probably drove this every day. If so, he would know that cyclists use this stretch of roadway in the early hours. Not that this is any type of excuse or cause, it just a factor that would make it difficult to believe that the motorist would not be reasonably expecting folks to be riding that early.
3. Handicapped plates- I noted the same thing at the scene and discussed it with the newspaper photographer and one of the cops. No one knew anything... later that day, when we were there laying flowers, a guy jogged by. He said he worked with the motorist. Somebody asked about the plates, and the guy said the motorist had some sort of leg issues - no "impairment" from a driving perspective he felt.
4. What happened? To me, just looking at the scene, it appears that the motorist "didn't see" the bike/rider and just ran the guy down from behind. Speed differential had to be pretty big, I think, given the damage to the car and that fact that it killed the rider... from one news story I read, the rider was a big guy, like 6'2" - It appeared to me that he slid up the hood, hit the windshield with body and snapped his head back onto the roof, near the point where the three roof lines come together... a very strong point on the roof. You can see the indentation on the roof where his head clearly hit. There were "gouge" marks on the pavement which were highlighted by the orange paint - these were to the right of the white line. it appeared to me, from the marks and paint, that the point of impact was likely very very close to the white line, if not to the right of it...
5. Someone asked about the double yellow line - in 2006 we [Ohio Bicycle Federation] got many amendments passed relating to cycling. One was a change which permitted motorists to cross the double yellow under a particular set of circumstances, the key one being that the vehicle being passed was going half the speed limit or slower...
http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=270266http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=270267
Hope that helps - I'll be posting a lot on this crash. CPD had its fancy CSI truck there with the super duper high def camera so there should be some interesting data to look at some day.

Steve Magas

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurt Erlenbach (Post 14674289)
A few points. First, I made a mistake by pointing out the handicapped plate (though some of you certainly would have picked up on it yourselves). There is no evidence that this driver is handicapped, or if he is, whether the handicap contributed to the crash. Second, it apparently was early dawn and foggy at the time of the crash and while it probably was light enough to see if you were, say, jogging on the trail, it would have been neither safe nor legal to bike without lights. It is unclear whether Mr. Gast's lights were on, but I'd bet they were. Third, we all make mistakes while driving. 99+% of the time, nothing happens. For most of the remaining 1%, the result is bent sheet metal, maybe some whiplash, and a ticket. In only a tiny fraction of those mistakes is someone seriously hurt or killed. Whenever I get all high and mighty about bad drivers, I try to imagine how I would feel if one of my children were the driver. That tempers my judgment. Finally, crashes like this should keep no one from cycling, any more than a fatal car crash in the news should keep anyone from driving. This should be a learning experience for all of us, both in how we drive and how we ride. We can change what we ourselves do - we cannot change what others do, at least not by much. I've learned a lot from A&S about how to ride more safely and how to drive more safely. The best way to honor Mr. Gast is by learning from his death.


Myosmith 08-30-12 09:25 PM

Quote:

Why are handicap people allowed to drive?
Wow, really :rolleyes: Not every handicap impares the ability to drive. I have a friend who lost his left leg below the knee in the first Gulf war. He drives an automatic and is every bit as good and safe a driver as any person I know with two legs, yet he qualifies for a handicapped plate. There is also an individual in the area who uses a wheelchair who has an adapted SUV. She is way more careful than 90% of the teenagers and probably 50% of the non-handicapped adults on the road. I seriously doubt she is at any higher risk of an accident than any one of us. Did you know that you can also get a handicapped plate for a vehicle that is the primary transportation for a handicapped person, even if someone else is the driver? For example: If you have a child with cerebral palsy, you can get a handicap plate for the family car.

Handicapped people are allowed to drive for the same reason that paraplegics can ride hand-powered recumbents or why double amputees can run in the Olympics.

Ignorance is perhaps the greatest human handicap.

honey locust 08-30-12 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Myosmith (Post 14674672)
Wow, really :rolleyes: Not every handicap impares the ability to drive. I have a friend who lost his left leg below the knee in the first Gulf war. He drives an automatic and is every bit as good and safe a driver as any person I know with two legs, yet he qualifies for a handicapped plate. There is also an individual in the area who uses a wheelchair who has an adapted SUV. She is way more careful than 90% of the teenagers and probably 50% of the non-handicapped adults on the road. I seriously doubt she is at any higher risk of an accident than any one of us.

Handicapped people are allowed to drive for the same reason that paraplegics can ride hand-powered recumbents or why double amputees can run in the Olympics.

Ignorance is perhaps the greatest human handicap.

I really have to say this again? Being able to ride a hand-powered recumbent is a right that us Americans have(and probably every other country I would assume). Driving a car is NOT A RIGHT. Its a privilege for those able to do it safely. Can't drive a car without having to text constantly? Your privilege should be revoked. Have a handicap that makes you even a fraction less able to drive safely compared to an able bodied person? Your privilege should be revoked. I don't care if this makes you sad, inconveniences you, makes you lose your job, or whatever.

Digital_Cowboy 08-30-12 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Barnard (Post 14673907)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Digital_Cowboy (Post 14672721)
Gene,

I did not say or suggest that the handicap not be allowed to drive. What I said us that because of the fact that they are handicapped, that they have to prove that they can safely drive a car on the public roads. That us not saying that they shouldn't be allowed to drive.

And as a Disabled Vet myself, I understand that a person with either handicap plates or a disabled mirror hanger could be a Disabled Vet. But that aside, if it's not safe for them to drive it doesn't matter why they're disabled.

I never knew that. Thanks for your service.

Paul,

Thank you, and you are welcome.

Digital_Cowboy 08-30-12 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurt Erlenbach (Post 14674289)
A few points. First, I made a mistake by pointing out the handicapped plate (though some of you certainly would have picked up on it yourselves). There is no evidence that this driver is handicapped, or if he is, whether the handicap contributed to the crash. Second, it apparently was early dawn and foggy at the time of the crash and while it probably was light enough to see if you were, say, jogging on the trail, it would have been neither safe nor legal to bike without lights. It is unclear whether Mr. Gast's lights were on, but I'd bet they were. Third, we all make mistakes while driving. 99+% of the time, nothing happens. For most of the remaining 1%, the result is bent sheet metal, maybe some whiplash, and a ticket. In only a tiny fraction of those mistakes is someone seriously hurt or killed. Whenever I get all high and mighty about bad drivers, I try to imagine how I would feel if one of my children were the driver. That tempers my judgment. Finally, crashes like this should keep no one from cycling, any more than a fatal car crash in the news should keep anyone from driving. This should be a learning experience for all of us, both in how we drive and how we ride. We can change what we ourselves do - we cannot change what others do, at least not by much. I've learned a lot from A&S about how to ride more safely and how to drive more safely. The best way to honor Mr. Gast is by learning from his death.

I think that that sums it up best.

FlatSix911 08-31-12 03:22 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by lsberrios1 (Post 14671681)

Very sad ...

[h=1]Police: 100-year-old driver hits 11 near LA school[/h]
http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=270331

dpeters11 08-31-12 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by honey locust (Post 14674733)
I really have to say this again? Being able to ride a hand-powered recumbent is a right that us Americans have(and probably every other country I would assume). Driving a car is NOT A RIGHT. Its a privilege for those able to do it safely. Can't drive a car without having to text constantly? Your privilege should be revoked. Have a handicap that makes you even a fraction less able to drive safely compared to an able bodied person? Your privilege should be revoked. I don't care if this makes you sad, inconveniences you, makes you lose your job, or whatever.

Going by that you could say that someone that needs corrective lenses to pass the vision test is a small fraction less able to drive safely than someone with uncorrected 20/20.

honey locust 08-31-12 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dpeters11 (Post 14675644)
Going by that you could say that someone that needs corrective lenses to pass the vision test is a small fraction less able to drive safely than someone with uncorrected 20/20.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

dpeters11 08-31-12 09:12 AM

Yikes, that would take out about 30% of the US population in terms of drivers.

Though, I guess at that point we might have better mass transit systems. Roads would be less crowded for bikers, though might have more potholes if the road infrastructure wasn't kept up. But I do think that position is a bit extreme.

gmt13 08-31-12 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by honey locust (Post 14675853)
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

Well, how about all of the folks who have seasonal allergies? They shouldn't drive either because sneezing certainly affects your ability to control the vehicle. And how about the folks that stayed up late the night before? We should have REM clocks on everybody that gauge whether the have had sufficient sleep before driving.

I do thing a full bladder improves driving skill, though. 1) it keeps you awake and 2) you are very alert because you are on the lookout for a convenient spot.

The question is: If a person with contact lenses drinks a lot of water before driving, does that compensate for the slight decrement in driving ability?

Also: my apologies for moving away from the main topic, I won't do it again unless in response to another outrageous post.

-G

Hoshnasi 08-31-12 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by honey locust (Post 14674733)
I really have to say this again? ... Driving a car is NOT A RIGHT. Its a privilege for those able to do it safely...

This is false, and patently against what the founding fathers had in mind regarding the country. I'll speak no more politics in this thread, just leave a link which you can go read.Watch the video in particular.

Notso_fastLane 08-31-12 11:24 AM

My in-laws have a handicap plate. My FIL drives, but the plate is because my MIL is wheelchair bound. However, all that discussion is really not the point of this thread. I do hope that information will eventually come to light that tells more about why this tragedy occurred. I also really hope it wasn't simple negligence, but I won't hold my breath on that part....

Commodus 08-31-12 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoshnasi (Post 14676695)
This is false, and patently against what the founding fathers had in mind regarding the country. I'll speak no more politics in this thread, just leave a link which you can go read.Watch the video in particular.

This is an interesting assertion. It's off topic here, but maybe worth a thread.

njkayaker 08-31-12 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoshnasi (Post 14676695)
This is false, and patently against what the founding fathers had in mind regarding the country. I'll speak no more politics in this thread, just leave a link which you can go read.Watch the video in particular.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

You have a right to travel. You don't have a right to a particular mode of travel.

You don't need a car to travel (people travel all the time without driving), thus being able to drive isn't necessary to the right to travel (that is, the two things are not the same thing).

genec 08-31-12 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digital_Cowboy (Post 14675005)
Paul,

Thank you, and you are welcome.

BTW I didn't know it either. Regardless of our conversation, thank you for your service.

Now the odd thing is that I seem to be defending you, as I interpreted the earlier conversation as a jab on the disabled and thought it was totally off base.

Let's just leave it as a misunderstanding... really no point in going further.

genec 08-31-12 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by honey locust (Post 14675853)
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

As someone that wears glasses... I have to agree... but I also don't believe that such "disabilities" can't be well compensated for.

I have poor peripheral vision as glasses don't help much there... I simply turn my head more and use mirrors more, and have developed a habit to "always look twice." Am I a perfect driver... well, no. But then few of us are.

But I do see quite well the things that are right in front of me. And I am very observant of cyclists.

Kactus 08-31-12 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gmt13 (Post 14676582)
Well, how about all of the folks who have seasonal allergies? They shouldn't drive either because sneezing certainly affects your ability to control the vehicle. And how about the folks that stayed up late the night before? We should have REM clocks on everybody that gauge whether the have had sufficient sleep before driving.

-G

Science has shown that our judgment has not fully developed until our mid to late 20's... should people younger than 25 be prohibited from driving? Also our reflexes start to deteriorate after 40... should everyone over 40 be prohibited from driving? I can see it now; only people between 25 and 40 in perfect health can drive. So basically this would only be active duty Air Force pilots!

I-Like-To-Bike 08-31-12 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by honey locust (Post 14675853)
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

I thought so. Is there anybody whom YOU ( if you were the all powerful Queen) would authorize to own and drive a privately owned motor vehicle. If so, why?

Myosmith 08-31-12 01:55 PM

Quote:

Have a handicap that makes you even a fraction less able to drive safely compared to an able bodied person? Your privilege should be revoked.
I know a lot of "able bodied" people who can't drive worth s*** and several individuals who are legally handicapped who are probably above average in both driving skill and road awareness. Yes, people whose handicap prevents them from driving safely under normal conditions should not be issued a license. But if they can pass the same behind the wheel test required of everyone else, who are you to say their "privilege" should be any more restricted than yours? Just having a handicap plate does not automatically mean the person behind the wheel is any less safe of a driver than anyone else on the road.

I personally think there should be an IQ test right along side the behind the wheel as I share the road with a lot of "able bodied" dumb a$$es every day. Which would you rather have behind the wheel, a man with one leg or a guy who's a half-wit?

Digital_Cowboy 08-31-12 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by genec (Post 14677026)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Digital_Cowboy (Post 14675005)
Paul,

Thank you, and you are welcome.

BTW I didn't know it either. Regardless of our conversation, thank you for your service.

Now the odd thing is that I seem to be defending you, as I interpreted the earlier conversation as a jab on the disabled and thought it was totally off base.

Let's just leave it as a misunderstanding... really no point in going further.

Thank you Gene, and you are also welcome. One of the things I've enjoyed about all of our conversations is that even though we don't always agree with each other. We've always managed to do so respectfully.

dpeters11 08-31-12 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kactus (Post 14677216)
Science has shown that our judgment has not fully developed until our mid to late 20's... should people younger than 25 be prohibited from driving? Also our reflexes start to deteriorate after 40... should everyone over 40 be prohibited from driving? I can see it now; only people between 25 and 40 in perfect health can drive. So basically this would only be active duty Air Force pilots!

Even the Air Force allows their pilots to have up to 20/70 vision as long as it's correctable to 20/20, at least for a normal pilot. The Navy I think is more strict. So maybe driving would be limited to current Blue Angels.

Digital_Cowboy 08-31-12 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by genec (Post 14677049)
Quote:

Originally Posted by honey locust (Post 14675853)
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

As someone that wears glasses... I have to agree... but I also don't believe that such "disabilities" can't be well compensated for.

I have poor peripheral vision as glasses don't help much there... I simply turn my head more and use mirrors more, and have developed a habit to "always look twice." Am I a perfect driver... well, no. But then few of us are.

But I do see quite well the things that are right in front of me. And I am very observant of cyclists.

Gene,

As someone who also wears glasses I also agree. I use my helmet mounted mirror quite frequently. And if I see any cars behind me, no matter how far back I'll do a shoulder check either just before or at the same time that I'm singling that I am getting ready to change lanes or turn.

And just as an aside for those who haven't been I'm the military. The military (or at least the Army) doesn't consider wearing glasses to be a disability. As if I remember correctly, the Army rates things starting at zero and working up. When I first enlisted my rating was zero, even though I wear glasses.

genec 08-31-12 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digital_Cowboy (Post 14677513)
Gene,

As someone who also wears glasses I also agree. I use my helmet mounted mirror quite frequently. And if I see any cars behind me, no matter how far back I'll do a shoulder check either just before or at the same time that I'm singling that I am getting ready to change lanes or turn.

And just as an aside for those who haven't been I'm the military. The military (or at least the Army) doesn't consider wearing glasses to be a disability. As if I remember correctly, the Army rates things starting at zero and working up. When I first enlisted my rating was zero, even though I wear glasses.

Of course that somewhat depends on your job in the military. I believe you have to have 20/20 vision to be a fighter pilot or a SEAL team member for instance.

I was in electronics... my eyesight requirement was I could not be colorblind. Glasses were no problem.

corvuscorvax 08-31-12 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kactus (Post 14677216)
Science has shown that our judgment has not fully developed until our mid to late 20's... should people younger than 25 be prohibited from driving?

I have often thought that we get things absolutely backwards in the U.S.: the drinking age should be 16 and the driving age should be 21. It would solve a lot of problems.

Digital_Cowboy 08-31-12 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by genec (Post 14677587)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Digital_Cowboy (Post 14677513)
Gene,

As someone who also wears glasses I also agree. I use my helmet mounted mirror quite frequently. And if I see any cars behind me, no matter how far back I'll do a shoulder check either just before or at the same time that I'm singling that I am getting ready to change lanes or turn.

And just as an aside for those who haven't been I'm the military. The military (or at least the Army) doesn't consider wearing glasses to be a disability. As if I remember correctly, the Army rates things starting at zero and working up. When I first enlisted my rating was zero, even though I wear glasses.

Of course that somewhat depends on your job in the military. I believe you have to have 20/20 vision to be a fighter pilot or a SEAL team member for instance.

I was in electronics... my eyesight requirement was I could not be colorblind. Glasses were no problem.

Gene,

You could be right, but not having held either of those MOSes I can't speak to the qualifications for them.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:52 PM.