Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Advocacy & Safety (http://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/)
-   -   Cyclist dies in SF garbage-truck crash (http://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/891341-cyclist-dies-sf-garbage-truck-crash.html)

kalliergo 05-23-13 11:03 AM

Cyclist dies in SF garbage-truck crash
 
Cyclist dies in SF garbage-truck crash

ItsJustMe 05-23-13 11:26 AM

No idea who is at fault but people, do not ride alongside trucks regardless of what you think your rights are. I've driven large farm vehicles before, and it's simply not possible to see everything around them.

If a truck is pulling past me, I will watch carefully and if he's going to be there more than a few seconds, I slow down to get him past me as quickly as possible. If I'm overtaking, I either slow down to stay at least 20 feet behind, or I find some way to get around him without putting myself between him and any other object.

(of course, the mandatory "the cyclist was not wearing a helmet" is in the article. Neither was he probably wearing a condom - it would have done him about as much good and is exactly as relevant to the situation).

AnthonyMcEwen 05-23-13 11:32 AM

Whats the point in this comment.

"It does not appear that the bicyclist was wearing a helmet, according to a preliminary investigation, said police spokesman Officer Gordon Shyy."

F*** load of good a foam helmet would make against a dumpster truck...just trying to lay the blame on the cyclist / or trying to make it sound like its partly the cyclist fult (well it could be we dont know the excact details) but the way they say that at then end it just trying to divert attention to the cyclist. like the cyclist is in the wrong just cos hes not wearing a helmet...

And I bet the driver will use this in his statement or defence as well....grr...

* and breath....

It seems now days the media use antthing they can to make thing controversial or sell there news ect even when it has nothing to do with what there reporting...

grr..

AnthonyMcEwen 05-23-13 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ItsJustMe (Post 15658410)
No idea who is at fault but people, do not ride alongside trucks regardless of what you think your rights are. I've driven large farm vehicles before, and it's simply not possible to see everything around them.

If a truck is pulling past me, I will watch carefully and if he's going to be there more than a few seconds, I slow down to get him past me as quickly as possible. If I'm overtaking, I either slow down to stay at least 20 feet behind, or I find some way to get around him without putting myself between him and any other object.

(of course, the mandatory "the cyclist was not wearing a helmet" is in the article. Neither was he probably wearing a condom - it would have done him about as much good and is exactly as relevant to the situation).




oh dang u beat me to it...but +1 why is there a need to do this!!

rica rica 05-23-13 11:34 AM

a guy i know was killed recently in a motorcycle accident and he was wearing a helmet, which all the news stories pointed out. I'm not sure but maybe the reporter thinks everyone reading will ask that question anyway.

howsteepisit 05-23-13 11:38 AM

I had the same thought relative to the not wearing a helmet comment. talk about blaming the victim. Or perhaps the spin doctors and lawyers for the trash company are already starting the defense?

lostarchitect 05-23-13 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by howsteepisit (Post 15658465)
I had the same thought relative to the not wearing a helmet comment. talk about blaming the victim. Or perhaps the spin doctors and lawyers for the trash company are already starting the defense?


It's standard to note in accidents. If it isn't noted, people will ask.

kalliergo 05-23-13 11:56 AM

Can't assign responsibility until we know a bunch more. But, very likely, one of the standard combinations of bad lane-positioning choices by cyclist and driver.

[Insert standard sharrows and Share the Road signs rant here.]

Do drop into the comment thread if you have a few moments. There's cyclist blood on the road and the cagers want more. ["Welcome, ladies and gentlemen to our beautiful City by the Bay!"] And most haven't the tiniest clue what legal, best-practice behavior would look like. :(

kalliergo 05-23-13 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lostarchitect (Post 15658556)
It's standard to note in accidents. If it isn't noted, people will ask.

Yes, and it's also fuel for the victim-blaming parties that inevitably develop around these incidents: "Duh! Darwin winner!"

ItsJustMe 05-23-13 12:05 PM

I sent an email to the reporter asking what was the point in saying he wasn't wearing a helmet, unless it's to blame the victim.

Commodus 05-23-13 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lostarchitect (Post 15658556)
It's standard to note in accidents. If it isn't noted, people will ask.

Who would ask in this instance? And why?

I-Like-To-Bike 05-23-13 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Commodus (Post 15658605)
Who would ask in this instance? And why?

The same type of donkeys who post moronic comments about news, gossip and factoids read on the Internet. Why? Because they are morons.

For examples of the thought process involved, see the helmet thread. Or the reader comments below any political or economic news anywhere on the Internet.

bikecrate 05-23-13 12:48 PM

Even our very good local paper always ends these kinds of stories with a helmet status comment. I think the inference is if you not wearing a helmet you’re prejudged a reckless cyclist who doesn’t care about their own safety.

kalliergo 05-23-13 01:36 PM

Well, the SFGate torch & pitchfork crowd will draw and quarter the dead cyclist and all his tribe, one way or another. The helmet subplot is just especially idiotic.

SwampDude 05-23-13 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kalliergo (Post 15658576)
Yes, and it's also fuel for the victim-blaming parties that inevitably develop around these incidents: "Duh! Darwin winner!"

Maybe it would be a good idea to wait until some facts are known. No point in getting all frothed up until a "victim blaming" statement is actually made.

Some of us are awfully goosy about anything printed concerning cyclists. Maybe its because we're members of the vast minority when it comes to populating our streets. Like other minorities, we should understand our status and work extra hard to present the best image possible...including wearing helmets and high-vis apparel.

SwampDude 05-23-13 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kalliergo (Post 15658962)
Well, the SFGate torch & pitchfork crowd will draw and quarter the dead cyclist and all his tribe, one way or another. The helmet subplot is just especially idiotic.

Who the hell is the "torch and pitchfork crowd"?

spivonious 05-23-13 02:14 PM

From the description in the article, it looks like a right-hook by the truck. Rights to the road or not, the truck driver had no idea the cyclist was there. No one at fault here, and possible bad decision by the cyclist.

Commodus 05-23-13 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SwampDude (Post 15659060)
Maybe it would be a good idea to wait until some facts are known. No point in getting all frothed up until a "victim blaming" statement is actually made.

Some of us are awfully goosy about anything printed concerning cyclists. Maybe its because we're members of the vast minority when it comes to populating our streets. Like other minorities, we should understand our status and work extra hard to present the best image possible...including wearing helmets and high-vis apparel.

This is a charming bit of fantasy. 'If only we were better somehow' maybe they would like us.'

spare_wheel 05-23-13 02:16 PM

Quote:

we should understand our status and work extra hard to present the best image possible...including wearing helmets and high-vis apparel.

I lie down on my bed, open my legs and think of England.

Lady Hillingdon -- 1912

kalliergo 05-23-13 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SwampDude (Post 15659080)
Who the hell is the "torch and pitchfork crowd"?

If you're interested, read the comment thread on the article in question, referenced and linked above. It's an example of a long-running blood feud, overwhelmingly anti-cyclist, in that large metro area news outlet. I'm not going to do remedial work here.

longbeachgary 05-23-13 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kalliergo (Post 15658562)
Can't assign responsibility until we know a bunch more. But, very likely, one of the standard combinations of bad lane-positioning choices by cyclist and driver.

Can't assign responsibility but you did anyway. Way to go.

vol 05-23-13 02:26 PM

No mention of the speed of the truck. I've seen garbage trucks speeding on city streets in the dark.

Shouldn't the driver stop immediately and stay there instead of "drove the truck around the block and parked back near the crash site"?

Commodus 05-23-13 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spivonious (Post 15659087)
From the description in the article, it looks like a right-hook by the truck. Rights to the road or not, the truck driver had no idea the cyclist was there. No one at fault here, and possible bad decision by the cyclist.

If it was a right hook, the truck could have been overtaking the cyclist. No one at fault? Are you suggesting overtaking another vehicle and turning directly into their path is an allowable course of action?

kalliergo 05-23-13 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spivonious (Post 15659087)
From the description in the article, it looks like a right-hook by the truck. Rights to the road or not, the truck driver had no idea the cyclist was there. No one at fault here, and possible bad decision by the cyclist.

Premature judgment.

How do you know, from the description, who was there first? How do you know who was passing whom, or who had caught up with whom? How do you even know what direction the cyclist intended to travel through the intersection?

Which operator(s) if either, signaled intention to change position or direction of travel on the roadway? How and for how long?

Why do you think the driver had no idea that the cyclist was there? How would that situation have developed if the driver had properly merged to the far right edge of the road before executing the right turn, as required by the California Vehicle Code?

Was the garbage truck equipped with the usual complement of mirrors that are mounted on those vehicles, intended for operation in tight spaces and dense traffic? Did that include the mirror systems that permit drivers to see traffic on the right side of the truck?

If we don't know these things and more, how can you say things like "No one at fault. . ."?

kalliergo 05-23-13 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by longbeachgary (Post 15659119)
Can't assign responsibility but you did anyway. Way to go.

No I didn't Gary. You failed to comprehend what I wrote. We suspect you are doing so because I told you in a previous thread that your mother should have taught you manners. I don't want to play with you. You'll go on ignore in a heartbeat.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:25 PM.