CAMBRIDGE - A bicyclist was killed yesterday after she struck an opening car door on Massachusetts Avenue and was run over by a passing MBTA bus, the Cambridge Police Department said.
The woman, 36, whose identity was not released last night, was biking north near 485 Massachusetts Ave. at about 3:45 p.m. when the driver of a parked SUV opened his door, said Frank Pasquarello, spokesman for the Cambridge Police Department.
The woman tried to swerve, but hit the door and fell underneath the passing northbound bus. The bus's rear wheels ran over her, said Brian Pedro, spokesman for the MBTA. She was pronounced dead at the scene.
''I felt a little vibration, I just heard something hit the side of the bus,'' said Dan Cole, 19, of Dorchester, a passenger on the bus who said he and others did not immediately realize what happened.
At about 6 p.m., officers issued a ticket to the driver of the black SUV, who choked back tears and declined to comment or be identified. The man's lawyer, John Salsberg, arrived after the man called from the scene of the accident.
''This was a tragic accident,'' Salsberg said. ''He has not committed any crime.''
Seems to me he opened his door without due care and attention.
presfoxm
07-03-02, 07:54 AM
That is terrible. Truly sad.
Hunter
07-03-02, 08:00 AM
There seems to be a rash of ccyclists getting killed by motorists without being charged. Since when is negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter acceptable?
Andy Dreisch
07-03-02, 08:02 AM
This is really a shame. At 36, the lady probably has a family as well, which would only make things worse.
I feel sorry for the guy who opened the door. He'll have to bear that burden from now on.
I bike-commute constantly and never EVER ride without my NiteRider digital strobe light turned on. This unit has two lights, and the strobe setting makes one of the lights blink steadily, about 3-4 blinks per second. I set it straight out so it blares right in people's rear view mirrors. You simply wouldn't believe the attention this draws, even in broad daylight.
You never can say that this would make a difference in the case above, but I have witnessed people do a double-take and not open that door when otherwise they would.
Be safe out there.
bac
07-03-02, 08:34 AM
Originally posted by Hunter
There seems to be a rash of ccyclists getting killed by motorists without being charged. Since when is negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter acceptable?
Hey, he got a ticket - argh.
Yup, while I have some compasion for the gentleman who opened up his door as he will have to deal with this deadly incident for the rest of his life, laws need to be applied and enforced. This is the only way to @ least limit this type of tradegy.
:(
Amir R. Pakdel
07-03-02, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by bac
Hey, he got a ticket - argh.
Yup, while I have some compasion for the gentleman who opened up his door as he will have to deal with this deadly incident for the rest of his life, laws need to be applied and enforced. This is the only way to @ least limit this type of tradegy.
:(
Yes, there should be more laws about this sort of negligence. New drivers should constantly be thought that they should look very carefully before opening their doors, just as much as they are repeatedly told about shoulder checking.
But we are humans after all, the poor guy that opened the door may have just forgotten to look before hand as he was probably thinking about where he was going or what was going to do...
This kind of mistake happens all the time, but this guy's ended with such drastic consequences.
The ticket means nothing even if it is for a million dollars. The guy has to live with the guilt of being the cause of someone else's death for the rest of his life. Imagine the images that are stuck in his head and the nightmares he will have.
Then again he was quick to call his lawyer... so you never know
hosehead
07-03-02, 09:06 AM
Was it something like this? Gee, I hope he had energy absorbing door padding. Schmuck.
http://holly.colostate.edu/~dkeyser/vwad.gif
MichaelW
07-03-02, 09:15 AM
That pic is the image most courts have of getting doored. The real deal is that a door opens when you are much closer and by the time your response delay kicks in you have hit it. In a New Hampshire court, the cyclist was found to be in the wrong for riding into an open door, like we aim for them.
The only answer is to ride so wide that doors wont reach you.
Its sometimes difficult when there are large vehicles and buses bearing down on you, but those are the times to be assertive.
May I suggest that you keep this sad incident as a reference to pass to cops and drivers who accuse you of taking up too much road.
Rich Clark
07-03-02, 09:16 AM
Without having seen the accident, it's impossible to know who was more negligent. Drivers often open doors without looking, it's true. It's also true that cyclists often weave around parked cars, riding closer to the curb when there aren't any. If the cyclist was directly behind the car at the moment he looked back for oncoming traffic, he couldn't be expected to see her.
There is indeed a lesson here for us, but it isn't "hang the SUV drivers."
It's never never never NEVER ride in the door zone. Ride in a straight, predictable line far enough to the left that opening doors will miss you, and stay there even when there are no parked cars.
There was a bus coming from behind her. She was about to get squeezed between a bus and a parked car. To an experienced commuter, this situation sets off deafening alarm bells. There is only one appropriate course here:
Take the lane.
Be assertive. Be a vehicle. Don't be a second-class road user. Riding defensively isn't the same thing as riding scared.
RichC
hyperdrive
07-03-02, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by Rich Clark
There is indeed a lesson here for us, but it isn't "hang the SUV drivers."
It's never never never NEVER ride in the door zone. Ride in a straight, predictable line far enough to the left that opening doors will miss you, and stay there even when there are no parked cars.
There was a bus coming from behind her. She was about to get squeezed between a bus and a parked car. To an experienced commuter, this situation sets off deafening alarm bells. There is only one appropriate course here:
Take the lane.
Be assertive. Be a vehicle. Don't be a second-class road user. Riding defensifely isn't the same thing as riding scared.
Good post, Rich. The person most responsible for our safety being the one we see in the mirror, I think your analysis is right-on and your solution the only prudent one. A terrible tragedy to be sure, but I agree the lesson here is the primary issue....not assessing blame.
Andy Dreisch
07-03-02, 10:37 AM
Rich, RIGHT ON. We all simply don't know enough about the situation, making it thoroughly irresponsible, in my view, for the "hang the SUV drivers" gang to immediately seek murder charges (or the like). Totally irresponsible.
Yes, a "squeeze" situation calls for a take-the-lane approach. But it is also true, and I think you'd acknowledge, that we don't know the exact circumstances and can only speculate that the poor lady could have done this or anything else differently.
With the blame-the-driver-always crowd, is it any wonder why this guy contacted his lawyer at the scene?
To the poster who questioned why it seemed no (or few) drivers have been charged with serious felonies like involuntary manslaughter or negligent homicide, two things: (1) please provide data to support the conclusion that there are fewer such cases pressed and (2) can we acknowledge that, perhaps, there is such a thing as an accident, an event that has serious consequences yet involves no malicious intent or felonious behavior?
To the poor lady, I wish her family well. To the poor guy in the SUV, take cover: the hang-the-SUV-driver crowd is out for you.
Rich Clark
07-03-02, 10:58 AM
Yes, the point is not to infer blame. Insufficient data. It could have been the driver's fault. It could have been the cyclist's fault. It could have been the bus driver's fault. It likely was some combination of the above, along with other factors not reported by the press.
If there's real blame, lay it at the feet of parents who never teach their children how to be safe cyclists. Assign it to "school bike safety days" that focus entirely on helmets, and never even discuss basic principles like not riding against traffic and obeying traffic lights. Point the finger at driver education and testing programs that never even mention how to handle the interaction between motor vehicles and bicycles.
Too many -- perhaps most -- problems between bikes and other vehicles are caused by the simple fact that almost nobody understands the rules -- or even that there ARE rules.
RichC
DanFromDetroit
07-03-02, 11:06 AM
I don't think we should hang him, possibly we could just throw him under the wheels of a passing bus.
Part of the problem is that most automobile drivers don't know or in some cases even care about the consequences of their actions.
"Gee officer, I just didn't see him". He was only wearing a bright yellow jersey, with flashing strobe lights on the bike.
"I didn't realize" is not an acceptable response. People die from this sort of inattention.
Most of my experience with this sort of idiocy comes from over 20 years spent on a motorcycle (rather than a bicycle). More than one of my friends has been killed by drivers who just didn't see, know, or care.
regards
Dan
LittleBigMan
07-03-02, 11:38 AM
Firstly, you have a needless death, which is just the beginning. Long after people have forgotten, this lady's loved ones will remember, and weep. If she had children, their lives will be forever changed. I feel for the man whose door hit the cyclist (may I say it that way?) but I feel more symapthy for the cyclist, who will not see another day.
Secondly, the person who opened his car door in her path, though not yet proven to be negligent in court, was issued a ticket. This is the first sign of fault in a collision, as police reports carry a great deal of weight. However, unless malicious intent or extreme negligence is proven to a jury, that jury will more than likely sympathize with the driver, since they will all reason, "it could so easily happen to any of us."
Thirdly, avoiding car doors is something we all need to learn to do, as has been stated here abundantly. But if the cyclist was cycling responsibly, even if she may have been a bit too close to the parked cars ("it could so easily happen to any of us,")
she had the right-of-way, which forms the basis for determining fault (the issued ticket adding weight.) Would I appear to be part of the "hang-the-SUV-driver crowd" if I suggested the party at fault is given a stiffer penalty than a ticket?
What if the car door had swung open in the path of a car, which then swerved and hit a bus, killing the driver?
Andy Dreisch
07-03-02, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by DanFromDetroit
<snip>
"I didn't realize" is not an acceptable response. People die from this sort of inattention.
</snip>
Well, until the world is rid of inattentive drivers and we're left with nothing but perfect drivers, and until someone invents a car where the driver is deposited on the curb-side of the car (never requiring a door to be opened on the street side), I'll follow Rich Clark's advice.
Andy Dreisch
07-03-02, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by LittleBigMan
Would I appear to be part of the "hang-the-SUV-driver crowd" if I suggested the party at fault is given a stiffer penalty than a ticket?
What if the car door had swung open in the path of a car, which then swerved and hit a bus, killing the driver?
Please, what would be the charges you level in either case?
Was there a white line separating the parking lane from the traffic lane? If so, which side of that line was the bike on? Bikes don't have the right-of-way if they're not riding legally.
Where was the bus in relation to the other two vehicles?
Was the bike moving parallel to traffic, or was she angling in toward the parked cars because of the overtaking bus?
If the driver did a reasonable survey behind him before opening the door, was the bike in a position where he could have/should have seen it?
I don't know any of these answers. None of us do. None of us knows enough to blame anybody. The cop issued a ticket because... who knows? How many police officers really understand the traffic code's application to bicycles? Perhaps issuing the ticket was simply the best way to make sure the case entered the judicial process, given that there was a fatality involved, in a situation where the issuing officer really had no idea how to handle things.
Insufficient data.
RichC
DanFromDetroit
07-03-02, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
Well, until the world is rid of inattentive drivers and we're left with nothing but perfect drivers, and until someone invents a car where the driver is deposited on the curb-side of the car (never requiring a door to be opened on the street side), I'll follow Rich Clark's advice.
The solution does not call for perfect drivers or never opening a door. It simply calls for drivers to pay attention to what is going on around them.
The way that you can start to get drivers to pay more attention is to dramatically increase the penalties for inattention. Witness the change in attitude about drunken driving over the last 30 years in the USA.
These incidents should be treated as negligent homicides (at least).
Heavier fines an penalties for ordinary traffic violations would help as well (speeding, running red lights, etc).
Strict enforcement of speed limits would also be a benefit. A post ed limit of 45mph would mean 45mph not 55 or 65mph.
As driving is not a basic right, I also favor on the spot revocation of driving licenses by police officers for serious or repeat offenders. You can get it back if you can convince a judge you deserve it.
The bottom line is that if you kill someone with your car you should expect more than a traffic ticket.
regards
Dan
presfoxm
07-03-02, 12:26 PM
A couple of thoughts:
a) Blame does not help. The cyclist, the bus driver and the SUV driver all share responsiblity. It was a human error with a human consequence. I am both a cyclist and a driver. I have almost run into people opening their car doors and I have come close to hitting people while opening my door. I am aware as I can be in both situations. But never am I perfect.
b) This is not a case of a driver intentionally trying to hurt or scare someone on a bike. There was no malicious intent. Prosecuting the driver will not stop people from opening their doors or not seeing every detail of what is around them.
c) It is illegal to open your door into traffic (hence the ticket) but so is jaywalking and it is Boston--both laws must be broken.
hosehead
07-03-02, 01:37 PM
This is from MSNBC's affiliate, WHDH 7 News Boston
( url http://www.whdh.com/news/articles/local/H1321/ )
"...Cambridge and MBTA police say the woman was riding in the bike lane of Massachusetts Avenue near Central Square when a car door opened..."
The driver wasn't paying attention. It's his/her fault. I hope they throw the book at this person. People need to realize that their actions have consequences. I'm not saying that the cyclists shouldn't pay attention. When I'm riding down a road like this I make it a point to know which cars are empty and which cars aren't. However, having the larger vehicle means having the larger responsibility. The driver shirked it and now someone is dead. I don't feel sorry for the motorist at all.
Spire
07-03-02, 01:49 PM
I don't think that the bus was at fault based on the information here. What did the bus driver do wrong? We do not know that the bus didn't leave the cyclist 5 feet worth of space or not. It seems to me that since she was in a cycle lane, the responsibility falls entirely on the SUV motorist who carelessly opened the door.
Andy Dreisch
07-03-02, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by DanFromDetroit
These incidents should be treated as negligent homicides (at least).
So, inattentiveness leading to death is tantamount to negligent homicide. :confused:
A flight controller who inadvertently causes an accident through inattentiveness -- guilty of negligent homicide?
A window washer, through sheer inattentiveness, accidentally drops a squegee (sp?) from the 30th floor and kills an old lady walking on the sidewalk below. Guilty of negligent homicide?
An SUV driver opens his door and steps out into the roadway -- and is smashed by an oncoming bus. Is this suicide?
hosehead
07-03-02, 03:02 PM
In response to Spire, I was not talking about the bus driver. I was talking about the SUV driver. I'm going to start on a rant here, so if you don't want to be ranted at you probably should skip on to the next post. Here goes:
People in cars don't know nor care to find out what bike lanes are for. They think they're extended parking areas, passing lanes, turn lanes, or a convenient area to throw their garbage. I couldn't even count the number of times that I've almost been run over or cut off by some yahoo who gets in front of me in a bike lane to make a right hand turn. When people are on a 2 lane road and the person in front of them stops to make a left-hand turn, rather than wait a minute the driver will more often than not pull into a bike lane (if available) to pass the turner in front of him/her. Was there a bike there? I doubt they even checked. On a scale of respect, to most motorists bike lanes rank in the same category as a urinal. Most of us on bikes are careful to avoid potential obstacles. All of the sudden, one person goes too far, is in the wrong place at the wrong time, and someone else gets killed. That cyclist would not have been killled had the SUV-er had a healthy amount of respect for the bike lane in the first place. They didn't. As I said earlier, cars are a bigger and heavier than us. They're more sturdy than us. They're higher on the food chain and thus they have a lot more responsibility.
-So there's the end of my rant. Sorry about that. I tend to get a bit excited about these sorts of things.
Oh, by the way, I would be mad at this person whether they drove an SUV or a Yugo. It doesn't matter. They're still irresponsible.
Feldman
07-03-02, 03:03 PM
something I learned early on--hog the damned lane whenever you can get away with it. "As far to the right as possible" should translate to the length (radius?) of the longest automotive drivers' door. This being America, it might also be the case that if a few killer drivers were lynched by armed bicycle gangs, they might be more careful around us. No, I am not kidding in the least little bit.
Andy Dreisch
07-03-02, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by hosehead
... People in cars don't know nor care to find out what bike lanes are for ... I couldn't even count the number of times that I've almost been run over or cut off by some yahoo who gets in front of me in a bike lane to make a right hand turn...
AGREED !!! But I also can't tell you the number of times a driver stops in the middle of an on-ramp. Or a driver practically stops making a right hand turn, with the car's ass end hanging out on the street. Or when a driver fails to use the turn lanes in the center of a road, choosing instead to block a travel lane.
All examples of idiot drivers violating traffic laws. And these examples do not involve bicycles whatsoever.
The moral of this story: There are idiot drivers everywhere. And we as bicyclists better be damned sure we defend ourselves against them. We can whine and complain about idiot drivers blocking bike lanes all we want -- but get used to it !!! Unless we somehow ban bad driving this type of thing will always occur.
LittleBigMan
07-03-02, 05:36 PM
(This is in reference to a post comparing the death of the cyclist to a similar scenario resulting in the death of a driver.)
Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
Please, what would be the charges you level in either case?
I'd hire a lawyer and find out.
That's all I have to say on this.
oceanrider
07-03-02, 05:50 PM
That could very easily have been me. I had a honking bus bearing down on me yesterday and being scared and inexperienced, I split the lane with the bus. My mind just went bye-bye in a sort of panic. My mistake was that I didn't have control of the lane. I was all the way on the right which is a road rule 1 breaking no-no and something I rarely do. The poor woman. She choked and it cost her life.
Chris L
07-03-02, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
Please, what would be the charges you level in either case?
I don't know about the US, but I know here in Australia it is highly illegal to open a car door without first looking. Now perhaps the guy didn't do it deliberately, and perhaps the cyclist was riding too close to the car, but neither of those factors excuse the driver not bothering to have a look first.
As far as I'm concerned the charge should be manslaughter. There's not enough facts yet to make it a murder case so I'll accept that he's not guilty of murder, but the fact is his negligent actions have resulted in the death of someone else. And it just happens to be my belief that if people are held to be properly accountable for their actions, we might just get some more careful drivers in the future.
Chris L
07-03-02, 09:25 PM
Some practical advice incase any of you are confronted with a similar situation. When I'm confronted with parked cars I generally hold a line wide enough so that I don't have to swerve at any stage. Sure, it sometimes pisses off the drivers behind me, but so what? They can wait three seconds to pass. It's not like it's gonna kill them or anything.
Andy Dreisch
07-03-02, 10:22 PM
Just tonight on my commute home I was behind a biker who obviously bikes a lot (you could tell by his overall build and his calf muscle buildup). He was on an MTB. He was fitted with a mirror and, in general, seemed like a pro.
Then, when the lights turned green, he weaved all over the place. A straight line he never took.
I, however, took a straight line. Away from doors. Consistent and predictable.
Just goes to show you the different styles of bikers. This guy was clearly a singletrack afficionado. He would probably kick my @ss on the mountaint trails. But I blew by him and felt myself somewhat of a role model based on this discussion today.
chewa
07-04-02, 01:53 AM
Originally posted by Chris L
Some practical advice incase any of you are confronted with a similar situation. When I'm confronted with parked cars I generally hold a line wide enough so that I don't have to swerve at any stage. Sure, it sometimes pisses off the drivers behind me, but so what? They can wait three seconds to pass. It's not like it's gonna kill them or anything.
Well said, Chris. It's all about riding assertively. I never let myself get in the door zone ( either as a cyclist or motorcyclist) If I did get hit by a door, then I think it would be partly my fault, because if a car should give 3 feet to a bike (to allow for wobble, potholes etc.), a bike should allow 3 feet to a car, to allow for door opening.
We are better equipped to see what's happening on bikes as we are more intimately involved in our surroundings.
I will move into the middle of the lane to avoid doors, or even if I can hear a car coming up behind in an area where it would compromise my safety to allow him to overtake. Again this is all done assertively, not aggressively and in plenty of time so it is clear what I am doing. As Chris said, it's not going to kill the driver to slow down for a sec. (unless they drive BMW's of course, when it is an insult to their manhood tom touch the middle pedal :) )
nathank
07-04-02, 07:35 AM
The solution does not call for perfect drivers or never opening a door. It simply calls for drivers to pay attention to what is going on around them.
The way that you can start to get drivers to pay more attention is to dramatically increase the penalties for inattention. Witness the change in attitude about drunken driving over the last 30 years in the USA.
These incidents should be treated as negligent homicides (at least).
Heavier fines an penalties for ordinary traffic violations would help as well (speeding, running red lights, etc).
Strict enforcement of speed limits would also be a benefit. A post ed limit of 45mph would mean 45mph not 55 or 65mph.
As driving is not a basic right, I also favor on the spot revocation of driving licenses by police officers for serious or repeat offenders. You can get it back if you can convince a judge you deserve it.
The bottom line is that if you kill someone with your car you should expect more than a traffic ticket.
dan
this is right on track! yes, in this case it's not clear from the few facts we have...
but driving is a serious and dangerous activity which most motorists just take for granted. If you're busy or tired or have something "important" (as if human lives are not important and a small daily taks is more?) like an important client on cell phone call or a child with a pressing issue, driving is a sideline activity where INATTENTION and CARELESSNESS have become acceptable.
yes, there are always accidents. in the above case, maybe the guy looked and it really was an unusual set of circumstances, but more often than not motorists just don't pay attention. In addition it's also "acceptable" to push the limits of safety when you're in a hurry or impatient or whatever --- speeding, tailgating, rolling stop signs, cell phone use while driving, etc. -- people just don't take driving seriously --- people are late stuck in traffic to pick their kid up from school or late to get home for dinner - but this should not lead to sacrafices in safety which is often the case today.
now as i cyclist i can be alert and attentive - it only makes sense. and i can be nice and friendly to motorists. but this will not change the overall attitude of motorists that it's OK to take risks, it's OK to be inattentive and distracted, it's OK to have an "accident" once every 2 years (as long as you're insured)... even if i am the best cyclist, some things are beyong my control and SOMEDAY, SOMEWHERE, something like the recent tandem tradegy that was posted here a few days ago where a car ran over a tandem from behind, might happen to me or someone i know or love...
i think the only way this can be changed is as Dan has suggested, in much the same way as drunk driving has been reduced in the last 15 years: 1) increasing the penalties to discourage people and make them really THINK the next time they need to cell phone while driving or are in a 'major' hurry -- "is the 2 seconds i save worth the risk to my and someone else's life AND the huge $1000 ticket and license revocation i could get?" and 2) to change the general attitude that it's OK to be less than very safe when driving b/c it's an everyday activity, like speeding and tailgating just as the old idea that "ah, it's only a few beers and a few miles. i know the way like the back of my hand. what can go wrong?" attitude about drinking and driving
DRIVING is an inherently dangerous activity and not one that people should be allowed to do without accepting major responsibility for the dangers they create to others -- thus, "accidents" which are most often not really accidents but the product of inattentiveness, lack of skills, or stupid decisions should be punished soas to prevent them in the future. Those that simply can't drive w/o "accidents" have not earned the right to drive (and enganger others' lives) so should have their licenses revoked
Driving is a PRIVILEGE that only those who demonstrate the responsibility and competence should be allowed to have! currently virtually every moron who can pass an eye test and hasn't killed at least 3 people while driving drunk is allowed to drive in the USA - this isn't right!
Hunter
07-04-02, 08:46 AM
Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
Rich,
To the poster who questioned why it seemed no (or few) drivers have been charged with serious felonies like involuntary manslaughter or negligent homicide, two things: (1) please provide data to support the conclusion that there are fewer such cases pressed and (2) can we acknowledge that, perhaps, there is such a thing as an accident, an event that has serious consequences yet involves no malicious intent or felonious behavior?
To the poor lady, I wish her family well. To the poor guy in the SUV, take cover: the hang-the-SUV-driver crowd is out for you.
First off my user name is Hunter. Second I was merely making a statement, this statement was in fact my opinion based on the info I originally read. Thie reaction you read from me was my response. Perhaps I should have adressed that my post wa my opinion. I did however assume that my post would be seen as such. Apparently that was not the case with you. As to your second point who knows? I am though somewhat amazed that you derived at the conclusion you did based on my post. I do however see the post about a Ca. tandem ride that went bad on a Sunday that a sleeping driver killed the stoker and hospitalized the lead rider. That I CALL NEGLIGENT!! HOWEVER THE SLEEPING DRIVER WAS NOT CHARGED!!
Lastly can you prove or provide data that supports the existence of a "hang-the-SUV-driver crowd" exists and that in fact ehy are out to get anyone much les the person in question who opened the door in this thread that killed a cyclist.
Andy Dreisch
07-04-02, 09:02 AM
Originally posted by nathank
i think the only way this can be changed is as Dan has suggested, in much the same way as drunk driving has been reduced in the last 15 years ....
It's hard to equate the drunken driving epidemic, with its cultural acceptability and underlying behavioral components, both of which have been successfully addressed at least to some extent in the last 15 years, with the occasional accidents that occur such as the one discussed here.
BABD -- Bikers Against Bad Drivers -- it's just hard to see this resonating across the general public. On the other hand, who could argue with the merits of MADD?
I'd rather see a campaign waged against unsafe lane changes and the like -- things that kill a whole lot of people.
... "accidents" which are most often not really accidents but the product of inattentiveness, lack of skills, or stupid decisions should be punished soas to prevent them in the future ...
Accidents are the product of inattentiveness, lack of skills (to fit the situation, which may be true of ALL parties involved in this case), or stupid decisions !!!
Driving is a PRIVILEGE ... currently virtually every moron who can pass an eye test and hasn't killed at least 3 people while driving drunk is allowed to drive in the USA - this isn't right!
Well, they don't call it a driver's license for nothing.
I think the overall point here is that you're arguing for a wholesale change in driver's skills because, unlike drunk driving, inattentiveness and insufficient skills are at root of this accident -- not behavioral issues or cultural acceptance as is the case with drunk driving.
So, please tell the Forum your detailed plans for boosting the skills of drivers, particularly with respect to biker's issues.
chewa
07-04-02, 09:19 AM
I think that we cannot change the attitude of drivers without a cultural change.
training helps, but it is the "culture" of a society which recognises that driving a car is not a God given right but is something to be earned which is needed.
part of the problem is down to the fact that driving safely is not "sexy", and advertisers always emphasise performance, speed etc. An emphasis on good skills, good observation etc would help.
part of the problem is that for various reasons, some related to perceived dangers to children from adults, and from motors (a vicious circle) kids don't cycle as much as they did in the past. Accordingly when they get to driving age, they don't have any experience of cycling and so don't make the necessary allowances for differences in performance vis a vis car to cycle, when driving.
i would be an advocate of making it necessary to get a bike licence (push then motor) before getting a car licence (except where physical problems prevented it)
i know that being a cyclist and motorcyclist has made me a better driver.
On the point of accidents. there are few unavoidable accidents. most are the result of inattention or negligence. The degree of fault may differ but the fact that there is fault remains.
On the example which started this off, I would say both parties were at fault, predominately the driver for not looking, but the cyclist also should either have been out further if it was safe to do so or should have stopped to move out later if it wasn't. might not be a popular view.
Andy Dreisch
07-04-02, 09:28 AM
Hunter, you are a serious Bike Forumite, so I'll address your points directly. I appreciate your feedback.
On your first point (First off my name is Hunter), perhaps you use the quote function inappropriately or misunderstood the context. If you rewind to my original post you'll see the following:
To the poster who questioned why ...
On the point regarding a presumed drop-off in charges pressed against drivers involved in incidences leading to a biker's injury or death, we agree that you presented this as an opinion. My point is that it is a harsh opinion. I think we deserve to know the basis for your opinion.
On the tandem stoker incident (which is new to me and this thread), I have not expressed any opinion. Now that you asked: I think we all agree that there is a range of responses that are appropriate, based on the original incident. For a motorist to fall asleep (which itself is most likely due to their behavioral choices, like partying all night) and cause this harm I say "throw the book at 'em"!!! For simple inattentiveness, which I believe as is the case here, I say treat it as an accident -- which IT IS !!!
The last point about the SUV crowd, I'm not sure what the question is. But it is my opinion that there are those on the board that nearly if not always blame motorists first. My opinion is backed up by various posts here in this thread, elsewhere in this Forum, and in other forums.
Again, Hunter, thanks for the feedback.
Originally posted by Hunter
First off my user name is Hunter. Second I was merely making a statement, this statement was in fact my opinion based on the info I originally read. Thie reaction you read from me was my response. Perhaps I should have adressed that my post wa my opinion. I did however assume that my post would be seen as such. Apparently that was not the case with you. As to your second point who knows? I am though somewhat amazed that you derived at the conclusion you did based on my post. I do however see the post about a Ca. tandem ride that went bad on a Sunday that a sleeping driver killed the stoker and hospitalized the lead rider. That I CALL NEGLIGENT!! HOWEVER THE SLEEPING DRIVER WAS NOT CHARGED!!
Lastly can you prove or provide data that supports the existence of a "hang-the-SUV-driver crowd" exists and that in fact ehy are out to get anyone much les the person in question who opened the door in this thread that killed a cyclist.
Chris L
07-04-02, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
Well, they don't call it a driver's license for nothing.
I think the overall point here is that you're arguing for a wholesale change in driver's skills because, unlike drunk driving, inattentiveness and insufficient skills are at root of this accident -- not behavioral issues or cultural acceptance as is the case with drunk driving.
So, please tell the Forum your detailed plans for boosting the skills of drivers, particularly with respect to biker's issues.
Firstly I have a question, what component of driver training relates to the safety of other road users (not just cars, but cyclists and pedestrians)? I know that here in Australia the amount of driver education relating to this is BUGGER ALL!!! Essentially, if some guy can manage to park his car on a deserted back street, he gets a licence immediately.
The first thing that needs to happen is that drivers need to be made aware that cyclists have a legitimate place on the road, and they need to be made aware of this before being granted a licence.
The other thing I'd change is I'd have somekind of re-testing facility introduced. I could get a licence tomorrow and not drive again for 20 years, yet as far as the authorities would know, it would just mean I've never had an "accident" in that time. I'd have them re-sit the test at least every five years to make sure their skills and knowledge are up to date.
People need to realise that an automobile as much capacity to kill someone else as does any other invention in the history of creation. Hence using one is an awesome responsibility to take.
Andy Dreisch
07-05-02, 12:09 AM
Folks, it all boils down to this question.
Which of the below do you think would best reduce bicyclist injuries and deaths:
Improving motorists' skills, boosting awareness of cycling among motorists, increasing penalties in non-accidental incidences
Improving bicyclists' skills, stiffening penalties for unsafe riding, even licensing cyclists before they can ride on public streets
I believe the latter would, by far, do more to reduce injuries and deaths among cyclists.
Once we rid ourselves of our unsafe brethren, then I'll be more willing to entertain going after motorists.
chewa
07-05-02, 01:50 AM
Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
Folks, it all boils down to this question.
Which of the below do you think would best reduce bicyclist injuries and deaths:
Improving motorists' skills, boosting awareness of cycling among motorists, increasing penalties in non-accidental incidences
Improving bicyclists' skills, stiffening penalties for unsafe riding, even licensing cyclists before they can ride on public streets
I believe the latter would, by far, do more to reduce injuries and deaths among cyclists.
Once we rid ourselves of our unsafe brethren, then I'll be more willing to entertain going after motorists.
I agree with you that there are unsafe riders out there, but as a cyclist of some 30 years or so i would have to say I disagree with you and go for the former.
Motorists are trained to drive and take account of other cars, and not to understand the fundamental differences in dynamics between cars and bikes (motorcycles as well)
I would also have to comment thatas a population group there are more lousy drivers than there are bad cyclists or motorcyclists, and I think this is largely because the latter groups (at least in Uk) either have to do additional training or "skill up" to compensate for the lack of understanding by motorists.
You are very lucky if you haven't come across many bad motorists. I cycle about 120 miles per week and last year did about 4000 miles by bicycle and 2000 on my VFR 750. (I also drive and it used to be a Jeep!). I regularly see dangerous actions by motorists be it "left hooking", passing to close, or just plain aggression. I don't see much bad cycling, but that's maybe because city streets are a bit dangerous for those not confident of their ability.
My views are my own but as someone who nearly lost his right foot when sideswiped by a van where the driver pulled into my lane without looking (to save waiting on a traffic light for 30 secs), I think they are valid.
i'm not anti motorist (I am one), just think the training of motorists is very poor.
LittleBigMan
07-05-02, 05:49 AM
Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
Folks, it all boils down to this question.
Which of the below do you think would best reduce bicyclist injuries and deaths:
Improving motorists' skills, boosting awareness of cycling among motorists, increasing penalties in non-accidental incidences
Improving bicyclists' skills, stiffening penalties for unsafe riding, even licensing cyclists before they can ride on public streets
I believe the latter would, by far, do more to reduce injuries and deaths among cyclists.
Once we rid ourselves of our unsafe brethren, then I'll be more willing to entertain going after motorists.
I agree, Andy, that training cyclists would greatly reduce injuries and death among them.
But it's not about choosing between 1) educating motorists, and 2) educating cyclists. Why should you have to choose? You can do both. And for those of us who already cycle defensively, the only option left is to educate motorists.
JRA
07-05-02, 06:59 AM
If the woman who was killed was indeed in the bicycle lane, then the SUV driver is at fault. It wasn't intentional; it was negligent.
I also suspect that some of the fault may lie with the design of the bicycle lane, which specifies that cyclists should ride a line which, as others have noted, is quite possibly not the safest line.
Andy Dreisch
07-05-02, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by chewa
You are very lucky if you haven't come across many bad motorists.
Are you kidding? It's impossible to ride 20 miles through San Jose and not encounter horrible motorists (California is the land of bad drivers, I believe). I have been very lucky I suppose to not have made contact with any of these lunatics.
Originally posted by LittleBigMan
Why should you have to choose? You can do both.
I only asked which would be most effective.
Originally posted by LittleBigMan
And for those of us who already cycle defensively, the only option left is to educate motorists.
For those of us who ride defensively, I agree. But what about the other cyclists who, I contend, far, far outnumber us, just as the number of lunatic drivers outnumbers skilled drivers?
Originally posted by JRA
If the woman who was killed was indeed in the bicycle lane, then the SUV driver is at fault. It wasn't intentional; it was negligent.
Does the introduction of a bike lane into this equation at all change the legal outlook? Is there (in Boston was it?) a special law governing opening doors in bike lanes?
Also (excerpted from dictionary.com):
neg·li·gent (ngl-jnt)
adj.
Characterized by or inclined to neglect, especially habitually.
Characterized by careless ease or informality; casual.
ac·ci·dent (ks-dnt, -dnt)
n.
An unexpected and undesirable event, especially one resulting in damage or harm: car accidents on icy roads.
An unforeseen incident: A series of happy accidents led to his promotion.
Lack of intention; chance: ran into an old friend by accident.
OK, we don't know the facts, but I think the word "accident" better describes the incident.
Rich Clark
07-05-02, 09:14 AM
I've long believed that including bicycle awareness in the driver education/licensing process is the only long-term, permanent solution.
Most adult cyclists in the US have driver's licenses, I'd bet. So they would be exposed to this information.
Most teachers, school administrators, bus drivers, police officers have driver's licenses. So they would be exposed to this information.
And most importantly, most parents have driver's licenses. They, along with the schools, would no longer be the primary agents of continued ignorance about the role of bicycles as legitimate road users.
It's not a question of whether the problem is that of drivers or of cyclists. The problem is that nobody is required to learn the rules, let alone obey them.
RichC
Rich Clark
07-05-02, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
Does the introduction of a bike lane into this equation at all change the legal outlook? Is there (in Boston was it?) a special law governing opening doors in bike lanes?
Apparently opening your door into traffic is a violation. Bike lanes are by definition traffic lanes. A special law would not be required.
RichC
nathank
07-05-02, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
Which of the below do you think would best reduce bicyclist injuries and deaths:
Improving motorists' skills, boosting awareness of cycling among motorists, increasing penalties in non-accidental incidences
Improving bicyclists' skills, stiffening penalties for unsafe riding, even licensing cyclists before they can ride on public streets
maybe if you look at total deaths and injuries of cyclists where kids and beginning cyclists have very high rates, then maybe you've got a point.
but i believe the majority of cyclists out there (i mean common daily cyclists or those riding for a few years -- the ones you actually see most of the time) actually are on the average very skilled and while some may do some stupid things like riding the wrong way or riding w/o lights, most have learned what is necessary to avoid most dangers - otherwise they would have been invloved in more accidents
i don't have any statistics, but MOST collisions involving a bicycle that i heave seen or read about are MORE the motorist's fault - i.e. you hear less often about a cyclist running a light and getting killed than the opposite - or i do hear about a motorist turning in front of a bicyclist and getting killed, and less about a cyclist turning in front of a car and getting hit, etc. and most are proabably due to a combination of both (like the Cambridge incident) again, sorry i'm too busy too search for these stats...
2nd: far MORE pedestrians are killed by cars than cyclists and while pedestirans present their own problems of unpredictability, the primary "cause" here is motorist inattentiveness and lack of care - i.e. speeding and making a right turn and not looking to see if any pedestrians are crossing.
so in my eyes, this shouldn't be seen as narrowly as "how do we make cycling safer?" but more generally as "how do we make the roads a better and safer place for all users, motorists, motorcyclists, bicyclists and pedestrians?" incidentally, automobiles are still the leading cause of death for persons under 35 in the US... that's for people in large steel safety cages.. then you also have the thousands of pedestrians and then relatively smaller number of cyclists killed in auto collisions...
on a similar note as also a long-time motorcyclist, i think a similar case goes: yes, there are some motorcyclists that are crazy and drive too fast and carelessly (e.g. accelerating to 100mph on a residential street), but the majority of motorcyclists are very highly skilled and safe. so why is there a much higher accident and fatality rate for motorcyclists than motorists? because 1) motorists don't see them b/c they're looking for a huge vehicle (car) (i don't know how many times in my motorcycling days a car changed lane into me and i had to brake, swerve or somehow MOVE out of the way while going 35 or 60mph), and 2) motorcyclists are less protected so generally more severly injured in a collision -- for example with new cars equiped with airbags and crumple-zones, most drivers and passengers will survive a head-on 20mph collision with another car with on average mostly minor injuries. will a motorcyclist who collides head on with a car at 20mph be so lucky? or a bicyclist?
but the reason why i disagree with your choice of the latter (educating cyclists more than motorists) has to do with the consequecnes: when a cyclist rides dangerously, carelessly or inattentively, he's for the most part only endangering himself - maybe annoying motorists who have to avoid him or causing insurance and other costs when his actions lead to an accident, but the consequences when a motorist drives dangerously, carelessly or inattentively are so much greater because of the far greater speed and size and force of an automobile - e.g. a cyclist falls asleep on the bike (or let's say daydreams) runs off the side of the road and maybe hits a parked car or a trash can and scares a old lady and disrupts a kids' soccer game - compared to - a motorist falls asleep, runs off the side of the road and takes out a jogger, a lady with baby stroller, a kid on rollerskates and then plows into someone's house ---- the consequences are 1) much much greater and 2) fall more on OTHERS (usually innocent victims) than on the driver at fault!
and as more and more "safety features" are added to cars (crumple zones, airbags, side-impact bars, seatbelts, head-restraints, etc) the consequences of a motorist's actions ON THEIR OWN SAFETY are reduced while doing virtually nothing for the safety of those they might collide with (with the excpetion of anti-lock brakes or the new anti-fall-asleep devices) --- actually to a worse end, most consumers are now buying LARGER vehicles in the interest of safety, not general safety, but ONLY THIER OWN SAFETY -- the huge Ford EXcursion might be darn safe for you and your loved ones, but it presents an even greater threat to others on the road
Originally posted by Andy DreischAccidents are the product of inattentiveness, lack of skills (to fit the situation, which may be true of ALL parties involved in this case), or stupid decisions !!!
yes, but this does not excuse 'accidents' which is the prevalent thinking: "oh, i didn't see him" as in the case of the driver opening his door here. so, we see how it's quite possible that he really did look and didn't see him... and well, i guess it's not so bad. let's looks to the 'SAFETY' craze that overtook much of US industry in the last 15 years... companies like my old employer Tenneco Gas who employed people who worked around high-pressure, high-temperature, highly voltatile substances with all kinds of dangers - they basically changed the attitude that "accidents happen" and took up a policy that virtually every "accident" is preventable is you take the right steps and are careful and aware. they instituted many safety policies, many of which were pain-in-the-ass overkill, plus gave awards for people with no accidents ... anyway, it worked really well and they had something like 5 years running with ABSOLUTELY no accidents (that resulted lost worker time, a cut finger and band-aid didn't count) until some guy showed up for work drunk and drove a truck into a building...
it is currently "acceptable" to take major risks while driving - for example, if you DON'T speed you usually get honked at or harrassed; the states have been dragging their feet over anti-cell-phone laws for a few years now even though the data show it's a problem; have you ever heard of someone getting a ticket for passing too closely to a bicycle? (if no accident occured); how often do people receive tickets for tailgating? (i used to do it ALL the time as a "normal" Dallas driver and never got ticketed - i was only worried about speeding tickets b/c that's all i ever got)
originally posted by Chewa
I think that we cannot change the attitude of drivers without a cultural change.
training helps, but it is the "culture" of a society which recognises that driving a car is not a God given right but is something to be earned which is needed.
i agree that it's not a simple solution, but requires changing the whole attitude or driving "culture" - that's why i used the drunk driving example b/c the increase in safety has come about b/c there has been a cultural change in that it used to be generally acceptable to drink and drive (at least in the SOuth) and now it's not --- e.g. if Billy Bob or the local CEO talked about how he was trashed and didn't remeber how he got home, but wow, his car was there in the morning, 20 years ago it was funny - now most people think "wow, what an irresponsible fool - i need to make sure to be careful around him and never let me kids ride with him, etc" -- the severe penalties have helped institute this change, as have the education, but in the end it is more than the penalties, it is a cultural change in the attitude toward the acceptance. ---> we need a cultural change that inattentive, careless, wreckless-because-we're-in-a-hurry driving is not acceptable
Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
So, please tell the Forum your detailed plans for boosting the skills of drivers, particularly with respect to biker's issues.
ok, i should preface all of this by stating that i am not some kind of safety freak, nor do i follow all traffic laws to the letter (mostly b/c i think many are wrong or 'engineered' with too much margin of error like speed limits that people are almost assumed to take as minmum recommendations) - for example, on the Interstate, i think the German system is far superior: where driving fast is allowed but you must do so predictably and orderly (i.e. no undertaking) compared to the US attempts to increase Interstate safety which is merely "ticket speeders" and don't do anything to prevent tailgating, undertaking, and all kinds of weaving and unpredictable behavior. and sorry if this is not well-organized, but here's a breif jab at a better alternative:
OK, there are a few ways or angles to go about this, i will present what i think would be ideal
1) require real driver training which focuses on the danger and the high level of responsibility one must accept to operate a motor vehicle. train in driving skills, but also behavior and decision-making. demonstrate the potential consequences of 1 second of inattentiveness or carelessness. teach people that driving is a priveledge that you EARN by demonstrating your abilities and then will LOOSE if you screw up. teach people that there are various obstacles out there including pedestrains, bicycles and motorcycles and as a motor vehicle operator you have the power and responsibility for the safety of these less-protected user. therefore, driving safeley, carefully, and attentively at all times is of utmost importance because you carry not only your own life, but the lives of many many others in your hands
2) enforcement-ticketing: currently police in the US give tickets for only a few "offenses": usually speeding, running red light, running stop sign, parking, or after an accident... how many of you know someone who's gotten a ticket for tailgating when no accident occured? i saw on TV that in the UK they have lots of under cover police on the road who cruise around and look for "unsuspecting" motorists - in the video clip they ticketed people for 1) undertaking (illegal in UK as should be in US), 2) eratic lane changing, 3) tailgating, 4) stopping on shoulder and reversing on freeway, etc --- in the US about the only enforcement is the "speed trap"
2) enforcement - meaningful and appropriate fines - traffic fines should be variable depending on your income -- i.e. a $10 for an executive parking in a bike lane is an "acceptable cost" for his time -- or a "hefty" $250 speeding ticket is a big deterrent for someone earning minimum wage, but for a profressional earning over $100k it's nothing (he just has to hire a lawyer to keep his insurance rate from going up) -- i think it's Finnland or Denmark where they do this and some CEO got a $250,000 speeding ticket last year --- probably should be standard fines up to maybe $50k/yr and then you get fined a percentage of your US federal adjusted Income (or something like that) --- also not just issuing speeding tickets to increase county revenues
3) enforcement- suspension and revocation: currently in the US when someone gets a ticket they have to pay a fine or maybe take a driver safety course (which is good), but unless you commit a drunk driving offense, do you really face the danger of loosing your license? for example, back in the day when i drove like most others in Texas (and was 21 years old and had a motorcycle) i got 18 traffic tickets in 12 months! yes, i had to take driver's training twice and pay over $1000 in all for fines and insurance increases... but did i keep driving? yes. did i keep speeding? yes. did i change my driving at all b/c of the tickets? no... (i'm now voluntarily changed after seeing the dangers from the perspective of
4) provide some other outlet for "fun" for young people other than driving fast and racing on public streets --- myself as example, between age 16 and 19 in Dallas TX i spent countless hours taking corners too fast and having street races, etc -- i had great car-handling skills so i rarely questioned whether what i was doing was "safe" --- what i mean is that young people - particualrly male teenagers have a strong desire to do "dangerous" and wreckless things, but driving on public roads should not be the #1 choice --- something like auto-racing on a closed track or downhill mountain biking or go-cart racing or motorcross should be an outlet --- heck, maybe every city should close off a certain set of streets and sponsor auto racing once a week for car enthusiasts -- and THEN get the message across that they can ONLY drive like this on the track and strictly ENFORCE penalties for unsafe driving on public streets
5) general education through advertisements or whatever that stress the number of people killed in motor vehicles and the seriousness of the act of operating a motor vehicle
6) another issue is appropriate road design - this is a complicated issue, but i commented a few months ago on this in the forum: basically the idea is this: building according to the current attitude means wide, straight, road with most potential obstacles like corners or trees or parked cars are removed and where cars COULD safely drive 100mph --> and then putting up a 30mph speed limit works poorly --- drivers have an inherrent concept of what speed is safe for a given road. thus road should be "designed to the speed of intent" so that a 30mph road has trees on the side and many curves or maybe a traffic circle at each intersection so that drivers naturally regulate their own speed as to what's safe. drive down an old cobblestone street in Boston or Philadelphia and for the most part you don't need speed limits or enforcement - people just don't drive excessively fast because they can't and/or it just "feels" wrong ---- this is a huge topic, but another example of what's wrong is the use of Interstaet-style entrance and exit ramps on city streets. these just encourage people to go fast!
ok, well this post is now way too long, but to summarize:
through training, awareness and the use of meaningful enforcement to back it up:
1) get the drivers who are not skilled or periodically inattentive or careless off the road
2) encouarge slower more safe driving by designing roads for more appropriate speeds
3) force those that are unwilling to voluntarily drive more safely to face severe penalties for not doing so (hefty fines and license suspension and revocation)
4) develop a social driving culture where an "accident" is thought of as being caused by someone's failure to prepare or prevent through inattentive, carelessness or wreckless
Rich Clark
07-05-02, 09:35 AM
And this seems like a good place to once again cite the stupidity of the design of bike lanes that are placed between the parked cars and the regular traffic lanes. There are a lot of these in Philadelphia, and I simply refuse to ride in them.
The dooring problem is their most often cited fault; I'm sure those groups working for the abolition of these dangerous compromises will use this tragedy as an example.
Just as bad is how they function when the parking lane is empty, because then motor vehicles expect to be able to drive there. They are constantly crossing the bike lane and passing bikes on the right; using them as "jump off points" at red lights to accelerate and pass slower traffic when the light turns green; or right-turning across them (in front of cyclists) instead of merging behind the cyclists before making their turns.
Even well-intentioned drivers don't know how to handle merging with and turning across bike lanes, because they're fundamentally unintuitive.
And their worst effect is the impression they create among the uninformed majority of drivers that bikes should only be on the street when these lanes exist. I can't count the number of times I've had interactions with drivers who, it turned out, believed I was illegally using the street because there was no bike lane on it.
Once again, if these lanes are going to remain in existence, the only way to increase their safety is to make learning how to deal with them part of the driver-education and licensing process.
RichC
orguasch
07-05-02, 09:46 AM
when I ride my bike and I am passing park cars, I see to it the I look at inside the cars, if there are people then I would drive very carefull untill I pass them or I would ride like a meter away from the car this way, that kind of accident hit close to my heart It happen about 5 years ago, a co-worker of mine was killed in almost the same manner along University Avenue, he was trying to avoid the door when he suddenly swerved to the left ended under the tire of a car, he was killed instantly, and the driver didn't even get charged :crash: :crash: :crash:
chewa
07-05-02, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
OK, we don't know the facts, but I think the word "accident" better describes the incident.
As a lawyer, I would have to say no.
it is foreseeable that opening your door in traffic without looking could result in it striking or being struck by another vehicle.
similarly, passing an occupied car too close, it is foreseeable that the door might be opened, but less likely as one would hope the occuppant would check first.
The definition of careless or negligent fits better.
oceanrider
07-05-02, 11:31 AM
I think this was just a tragic accident. The woman may have been an excellent cyclist who for that moment maybe made a split second bad decision and the driver may have a perfect driving record who figured opening his door to exit the vehicle was no longer part of the description of driving. Not knowing all of the particulars concerning the conditions, it may be a matter that to err is human.