Like I've said many times before, I've seen slow vehicles like bulldozers move aside (without stopping) on a multi-lane road (Torrey Pines Road) into a bike lane to let faster traffic (including me on a bicycle) pass.
It might not be required by law, but moving aside to allow faster traffic to pass, when it's safe and reasonable to do so, is the decent vehicular thing to do, even on a multi-lane road.
And if the BL didn't exist??? If there were no other room on the road... then there is no reason to pull over...
But the arguement continues down the line of the special charateristics of bikes... Hey, they are skinny... so why not pull over. Well if it is safe to do so, then there is no reason not to. But if you don't determine it is safe... there should be no reason to have to pull over... you should have just as much right to use that lane as any other driver of any other vehicle... AND motorists should accept that. Period.
Oh one other thing I noticed... motorists priortize the existance of the cyclists depending on other threats. A cyclist may be ignored in the case of an oncoming vehicle about to hit, or other similar threats. Cyclists do not have the same priority in drivers' minds as other vehicles... and that is important. This is perhaps most important in the case of someone overtaking a cyclist by passing over the double yellow line... an oncoming vehicle becomes a greater threat and the reason that the motorist crossed the double yellow may quickly be forgotten.
Brian
09-28-05, 04:05 PM
Don't drag that argument into this thread, you've already got it going into another thread.
genec
09-28-05, 04:12 PM
How is, "I didn't see here" an admission of driver negligence?
All it really means is he didn't remember seeing her. Do you remember everything you see? Quick, take a look around the room, close your eyes and name everything in the room. If you don't mention the stapler, does that mean you didn't see it?
Drivers see things all the time that they don't think about and instantly forget. Is it incompetent to see but not think about a cyclist as you pass her? If so, then all drivers are incompetent, because I bet you can't find a single driver who has never done that. A standard that finds everyone incompetent is absurd. Next time you're in a car driven by someone else, pay attention to any cyclists. After you pass one, as soon as the cyclist is out of sight, ask the driver the last time he saw a cyclist. Most likely, he didn't "see" that cyclist you noted to yourself. Unless, of course, that cyclist was me. If it were me, then the driver will have noticed him, because prior to passing him, I would have been in his path up ahead, forcing him to notice me. Only after getting feedback from him that he sees me would I have moved aside.
But anyway, if a cyclist chooses to ride on the sidewalk, at the side of the road, in a bike lane, it's unreasonable to expect every passing motorist to "see" him, and to accuse them of incompetence when they don't.
I have played this game... and asked for specifics about the cyclists to prove the motorists did see the cyclist. I found out they did see the cyclist, but focused on different things... I might have noticed the cycle color or the helmet, others recognized different things... "oh blue was not her color." I did not set up the game in any way, and I have done it with a number of drivers... just to test your "invisible behind a BL theory." Everyone I tested, (including co-workers) saw the cyclist... but noticed and recalled different things.
Cyclists are not invisible... they are seen, but how that information is later processed is up to the motorist. They may chose to ignore the cyclist, or they may chose to recognize the cyclist... either as an obstacle or as a user of the road. The latter is contingent on perhaps their driving experience and or training... perhaps even mindset.
A driver that does not believe cyclists belong on the road will readily ignore the cyclist, or become enraged. A driver that believes cyclists belong only in BL may register the cyclists and then chose to ignore them. A driver that also cycles may acknowledge and accept the cyclist as a fellow user of the road. Now these are my theories... so of course they can be debated to oblivion. But then we are here also dealing with your theories.
Brian
09-28-05, 04:26 PM
[snip]Now these are my theories... so of course they can be debated to oblivion. But then we are here also dealing with your theories.[snip]
No offense, as I really don't disagree with you. But the fact remains that no amount of debating will bring back this cyclist, nor will it determine the exact chain of events that led to her untimely demise.
Helmet Head
09-28-05, 04:34 PM
And if the BL didn't exist??? If there were no other room on the road... then there is no reason to pull over...
Right, which is why vc teaches to not pull to the side of the road when the outside lane is narrow. I thought you read EC.
It's the same fundamental principle that applies EQUALLY to all vehicle drivers: If it's safe and reasonable to pull aside for faster traffic, you should; if not, you shouldn't.
On a quiet multi-lane road, it's probably not reasonable to pull over. On a busy multi-lane road, it is (if no other factors/conditions make it unsafe or unreasonable).
genec
09-28-05, 04:45 PM
No offense, as I really don't disagree with you. But the fact remains that no amount of debating will bring back this cyclist, nor will it determine the exact chain of events that led to her untimely demise.
I understand.
I will stop my debate in respect for the situation.
Brian
09-28-05, 04:53 PM
Thank you. It looks like the exact same debate going on in another thread.
Helmet Head
09-28-05, 05:06 PM
Oh! Is that what's going on? I got confused... sorry!
Brian
09-28-05, 05:13 PM
Does "Another misinformed editorial" ring a bell?
pseudobrit
09-29-05, 02:36 PM
Can you cite a reference to back up that statement?
I'm piecing it together based on what I read in the articles. I'm just making assumptions after connecting the dots. I ain't saying it's gospel, Mack, it's just what I can make of it.
He turned into her bike. He was driving slowly. He says he didn't see her, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say she was in the blind spot in front of his mirrors. That means he'd hit her with the front corner of his truck. If he right hooks her after she's well behind the truck, she bounces off the side, which would be less likely to kill her since she had the helmet. From the articles, it sounds like everyone on the scene knew she was a goner. So a wheel went over her and exploded her skull. She could have gone down after being cut off and slid under the truck, too, catching a wheel that way.
Anyway, he was/had either:
a) heading straight at her
b) just passed her and then right hooked her
How is either one of those cases not his fault?
Or can anyone figure another way she'd end up getting squished?
Brian
09-29-05, 02:49 PM
She could have been day-dreaming and run into him, going under the back wheels. My conjecture holds as much weight as yours.
pseudobrit
09-29-05, 03:04 PM
She could have been day-dreaming and run into him, going under the back wheels. My conjecture holds as much weight as yours.
Guess we'll never know since the police didn't bother to say and the press didn't bother to ask.
alanbikehouston
09-29-05, 03:19 PM
The police have decided that no charges will be filed against the driver...according to the police, he did NOTHING wrong.
As always, killing a cyclist falls within the police definition of "doing nothing wrong". Police in Houston treat the death of cyclists as suicide...thye should not be riding on a public road.
My father was a professional truck driver for more than forty years. Never injured a cyclist, or anyone else. He was driving his truck five or six days a week, and his car on his days off. Never injured anyone.
He would NEVER have accepted "I didn't see her" as an acceptable accuse for killing someone. He made it his job to see everything going on around his vehicle. He never had a radio, a CB, or a phone in his truck. His did not want any distractions.
If he was driving on a residential street with a lot of cars parked along the curb, he would slow down to about 15 mph. I'd ask him why, and he say, "this is the sort of street where some kid is going to come out from behind a parked car". He assumed a kid was there, even though he could not see one, and adjusted his driving accordingly.
I have had several near misses over the years while on a bike when a vehicle decided to make a right turn. In each and every case, the vehicle came past me on my left, and then turned directly into my front wheel. Sometimes, I've avoided injury by hitting my brakes. When there was no time to stop, I made a sharp right turn, which brought me up against the side of the vehicle, instead of under their wheels.
In each case, the driver had the opportunity to see me. If they did NOT see me, it was because they were changing a CD, yakking on the phone, or daydreaming about something or other. I do NOT understand the "I did not see the bike" excuse. That excuse is nothing more than "Whoops...didn't intend to kill another cyclist...oh well..."
What is more sad is the number of cyclists who post in these "Forums" who seem say "Well, if folks knew how to ride a bike properly, they wouldn't get killed"....yeah...dead cyclists have just committed suicide.
Brian
09-29-05, 03:42 PM
My father was a professional truck driver for more than forty years.
He never had a radio, a CB, or a phone in his truck.
So how did he contact dispatch, or a delivery depot? How was he informed of weather and road conditions ahead? What did he do if he broke down? Leave the truck and walk for help?
As far as this thread, accept the fact that with no witnesses, nothing can be proven either way.
Keith99
09-29-05, 04:32 PM
I'm piecing it together based on what I read in the articles. I'm just making assumptions after connecting the dots. I ain't saying it's gospel, Mack, it's just what I can make of it.
He turned into her bike. He was driving slowly. He says he didn't see her, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say she was in the blind spot in front of his mirrors. That means he'd hit her with the front corner of his truck. If he right hooks her after she's well behind the truck, she bounces off the side, which would be less likely to kill her since she had the helmet. From the articles, it sounds like everyone on the scene knew she was a goner. So a wheel went over her and exploded her skull. She could have gone down after being cut off and slid under the truck, too, catching a wheel that way.
Anyway, he was/had either:
a) heading straight at her
b) just passed her and then right hooked her
How is either one of those cases not his fault?
Or can anyone figure another way she'd end up getting squished?
Lets see. How about he has slowed to a virtual stop and turns right while she comes from behind and tries to pass on the right. The ASSUMPTION that her head was squished is something you have decided on. While not rulled out by the article there is nothing to indicate that is waht occured. the article only says:
Although Sanders was wearing a helmet, she suffered severe head injuries.
There is also this little bit:
After the accident, Sevilla had to remain in the truck with his foot on the brake until authorities could place "chock blocks" behind the wheels to ensure the vehicle did not roll backward.
Now why whould they do thsi if her head were already squashed?
While far from definitive it does bring up images of her hitting the truck near the back. If she struck the side of the Armored Car there would be two impacts, either potentially fatal even with a helmet. The side and the road. Armored cars are solid, they make the average car seem soft in contrast.
dobber
09-29-05, 04:45 PM
I'm piecing it together based on what I read in the articles. I'm just making assumptions after connecting the dots. I ain't saying it's gospel, Mack, it's just what I can make of it.
If he passed her, now she has the responsibility as a trailing vehicle. If she (attempted to) pass him as he slowed for a turn, then she's at fault.
But it's a moot point to argue since nobody here knows anything beyond what was printed.
Brian
09-29-05, 05:09 PM
[snip] it's a moot point to argue since nobody here knows anything beyond what was printed.
Yes. Hasn't it been said enough times already?
Helmet Head
09-29-05, 05:16 PM
Arguing about might have happened here is indeed moot if one's purpose is to discuss what actually happened in this particular case.
If your goal is to talk about what might have happened, or what was likely to have happened, so that we can explore what traffic cycling habits we should drop or develop in order to reduce our chances of having something like this happen to us, it's not moot at all. And, after all, is this not the purpose of discussing these type of events in a safety and advocacy forum?
nova
09-29-05, 05:38 PM
Not to stick up for anyone but an armored truck has less than optimum visibility and many more blind spots than any car.
I dont know about where you live but here the brinks trucks for example have the rear door mirrors and front fender mirrors showing the area directly in front of the grill. So they infact have fewer blind spots. And if the driver is checking all the mirrors such as at his drop off or pick up points they infact have no blind spots other than under the truck.
Just looking out the windows they have many more blind spots but with mirror useage any fewer. In motion they do have alittle larger front and side blind spots. But fact is the driver is or should be fully aware of this and act acordingly.
As to whos at fault a driver of a car should always be considered at fault until proven other wise. Simply put drivers pull far to many bone head moves in cars. Like blasting by a bike at the same distance and speed that they would pass a car with. I think alot of this comes from hand books when you take the test for temp lics. Basically they treat a bike (200 pounds rider and bike) like a car (2 tons of metal with out any one in it). Passing me as close as you do a car will tend to want to suck me right in to you or under you. So alot of it can be blaimed on missing information in the books you read as a 16 year old kid getting your temps. I could pass you at 80 mph in a large buss with in a foot of you and not cause you to wreck if your atentive. I try the same to a rider im gona ither suck him along (rider might get a kick out of doing 60 mph wth out pedaling a single bit) or suck him under.
I had a guy yesterday tare by me. So i tried a little experiment. I did a nice little hard wobble and laid my bike down like i wrecked. The guy stops and came back askign if i was alright. I then explained to him what i said above. He simply never considered the fact that at even 25 or 35 mph his car was like a bike sucking vacume cleaner.
He was a "safe driver" or at least thought he was. Other drivers are not they know exactly what they are doing and want to scare us off the road or are to wrapd up in what they are doing or will do when they get hme to care.
Brian
09-29-05, 05:50 PM
As to whos at fault a driver of a car should always be considered at fault until proven other wise.
What country do you live in?
Helmet Head
09-29-05, 06:43 PM
As to whos at fault a driver of a car should always be considered at fault until proven other wise.
Jeez, even pedestrians don't get that much benefit of the doubt.
More cyclo-segregationist thinking. In this case, I think it goes something like this (please correct me if I'm wrong): Ideally, cyclists would be completely separated from motorists, or cars would just be banned. But in the mean time, we should segregate as much as possible, and at least give cyclists their own space, but where we can't, motorists must be held responsible any time they hit a cyclist, no matter what, unless the cyclist's actions are proven to be absolutely and blatantly dangerous.
The scary thing is this kind of thinking is prevalent not only among cyclists, but in all of our culture. It all adds up to cyclo-segregationism, which is ultimately very detrimental to being able to use bicycles effectively in traffic.
sentinel
09-29-05, 07:55 PM
They said he did nothing CRIMINALLY wrong. There's one heck of a lot of difference between the burden of proof for criminal chages and civil liability. Some of you want a pound of flesh where it might not be there to take. Just because one vehicle hits another does not mean the vehicle that struck the other is at fault. If you run the red light and I hit you in the side am I wrong because I hit you?
The police are the impartial gatherers of the evidence. They have nothing to lose by charging, but they sure as hell aren't going to charge something if there is nothing there to charge. The tragic thing is that someone lost a life. I think some on this board would be the first to bring a rope and string up the driver. That man will live a personal hell that you have no idea about.
Brian
09-29-05, 08:03 PM
They said he did nothing CRIMINALLY wrong. There's one heck of a lot of difference between the burden of proof for criminal chages and civil liability. Some of you want a pound of flesh where it might not be there to take. Just because one vehicle hits another does not mean the vehicle that struck the other is at fault. If you run the red light and I hit you in the side am I wrong because I hit you?
The police are the impartial gatherers of the evidence. They have nothing to lose by charging, but they sure as hell aren't going to charge something if there is nothing there to charge. The tragic thing is that someone lost a life. I think some on this board would be the first to bring a rope and string up the driver. That man will live a personal hell that you have no idea about.
Stop confusing the issue with facts. Let's argue about how this accident happened instead, even though none of us were there. Better yet, let's hijack the thread so we can further one member's quest to turn us all into vehicular cyclists, rather than sensible, courteous, and aware cyclists.
sentinel
09-29-05, 08:04 PM
Nova, you sure are quick to condemn the vehicle. Guess "innocent until proven guilty." means nothing to you.
Brian
09-29-05, 08:12 PM
Nova, you sure are quick to condemn the vehicle. Guess "innocent until proven guilty." means nothing to you.
If literacy=intellect, I'll pass you a grain of salt.
For what it's worth, the little windows and extra mirrors on an armored transport are not there so the driver can negotiate traffic. They're there for the safety of the occupants when they exit a vehicle filled with money.
Helmet Head
09-29-05, 08:29 PM
so we can further one member's quest to turn us all into vehicular cyclists, rather than sensible, courteous, and aware cyclists.
The implication that vehicular cyclists are not sensible, courteous and aware is uncalled for and totally without basis.
If you have a problem with something I or anyone else posts, then please indicate exactly what it is (quote the exact words), and state clearly what your problem with it is. But this kind of vague innuendo and personal attack is totally out of line.
Brian
09-29-05, 08:42 PM
The implication that vehicular cyclists are not sensible, courteous and aware is uncalled for and totally without basis.
When you look over your shoulder, do you see the traffic, or just a giant chip? I did not imply anything. VC and being sensible, courteous, and aware are not mutually exclusive. But those three words sum up safe cycling better than anything else VC has to offer. Not everyone accepts VC as a religion like you do, and therefore they are able to take comments like that at face value, rather than consider it a personal attack. I'm sure there are plenty of good points to VC, but having it shoved down our throats in every thread in the A&S forums gets old quickly. As does the assumption that VC would have/could have prevented an accident.
jomalley
10-05-05, 07:14 PM
The kind of scary thing is that there's a middle school a few miles down the road from where this happend....
I stopped by the school to do some observations of classes last week, and I counted 30+ bikes parked in the bike racks. Good sign of community growth, but you have to wonder what could happen...
slagjumper
10-06-05, 11:32 PM
Recently Pittsburgh paid out 3 million dollars to a pedestrian's family because they failed to put in safety features on a known dangerous street. Since that death there are bright yellow safety "yeild to pedestrians state law" signs at 4 cross walks where the death occured. Could it be that no one was to blame, and that all parties involved should be given notice. Including the armored car manufacturer. I think someone said way back in the thread that they had recently cut down trees, improving line of site. Cities are obliged to collect this type of data under national transportaion acts. If they dont pay attention they should be sued!
becnal
10-07-05, 04:42 AM
Putting the man in jail would ruin two lives. The driver's and the victim's. Society would benefit instead by revoking the man's liscence for life. Community service would be good too. Jail doesn't solve anything. My two cents.
becnal
10-07-05, 04:58 AM
The kind of scary thing is that there's a middle school a few miles down the road from where this happend....
What makes that scarier than the already tragic death of the woman cyclist who was killed? Children's lives are more valuable than adults'.
pseudobrit
10-07-05, 07:18 AM
Children's lives are more valuable than adults'.
How do you figure?
sentinel
10-07-05, 08:23 AM
Taking his license for life isn't a realistic answer for a tragic crash. He will punish himself more than anything some of you will even realize.
steve_wmn
10-07-05, 09:20 AM
I'd like to go back to speculating on how this happened. What bothers me is that this was an armored truck. An armored truck shouldn't be able to make a very fast "left/right hook" turn, it's too heavy. If the truck made a right turn I can see where the driver could be blameless. If the truck had slowed down below cycling speed, as would be necessary to negotiate a hard right into a narrow side street, and was signalling, I might fault the cyclist for overtaking the truck on the right if the truck was sufficiently far ahead when he started slowing and signalling. On the other hand in a left turn I'd lean toward blaming the driver, who should've seen the cyclist under any circumstances. the original report said the cyclist was travelling east but I think the direction of the truck was left out.
Keith99
10-07-05, 09:25 AM
One of the reports said they were both traveling towards downtown. Going the same way so a right turn.
Helmet Head
10-07-05, 10:52 AM
When you look over your shoulder, do you see the traffic, or just a giant chip? I did not imply anything. VC and being sensible, courteous, and aware are not mutually exclusive. But those three words sum up safe cycling better than anything else VC has to offer. Not everyone accepts VC as a religion like you do, and therefore they are able to take comments like that at face value, rather than consider it a personal attack. I'm sure there are plenty of good points to VC, but having it shoved down our throats in every thread in the A&S forums gets old quickly. As does the assumption that VC would have/could have prevented an accident.
Not only are VC and "being sensible, courteous, and aware", not mutually exclusive, "being sensible, courteous, and aware" is essential to VC, which the statement you originally made, "so we can further one member's quest to turn us all into vehicular cyclists, rather than sensible, courteous, and aware cyclists", did not recognize, which is why I said it was uncalled for, and totally without basis. And if you don't recognize that the words "one member's quest to ..." is a personal attack (not to mention likening my advocacy for VC to accepting it "as a religion"), you might want to give it some more thought.
I-Like-To-Bike
10-07-05, 12:27 PM
And if you don't recognize that the words "one member's quest to ..." is a personal attack (not to mention likening my advocacy for VC to accepting it "as a religion"), you might want to give it some more thought.
HH and Daily Commuter should form a duo crying the blues about "personal attacks" every time anyone doesn't first humor them as credible cycling spokesmen before calling their wacky idea-spades, wacky idea-spades.
Somehow they think responding to valid criticism/skepticism of their personal theories and proposals by repeating over and over "Personal Attack! Personal Insult" adds credibility to their wacky conjuring about other cyclists and motorists' behavior and motivations.
jonbth
10-07-05, 01:00 PM
I live near Noho and go up there often. Anyone whos been up there knows that pedestrians and cyclists outnumber motor vehicles. You can't drive thru that area without stopping multiple times for people crossing the road. I think drivers and cyclists should be more aware of their surroundings and the possible dangers.
spud
10-07-05, 01:05 PM
Taking his license for life isn't a realistic answer for a tragic crash. He will punish himself more than anything some of you will even realize.
driving a motor vehicle is a privilege not a right.
Daily Commute
10-07-05, 03:58 PM
HH and Daily Commuter should form a duo crying the blues about "personal attacks" every time anyone doesn't first humor them as credible cycling spokesmen before calling their wacky idea-spades, wacky idea-spades.
Somehow they think responding to valid criticism/skepticism of their personal theories and proposals by repeating over and over "Personal Attack! Personal Insult" adds credibility to their wacky conjuring about other cyclists and motorists' behavior and motivations.
It's difficult to respond to you with substance because you generally hide what few thoughtful arguments you make (and you do make a few) behind a wall of invective. In addition to calling an idea a "spade" without adding something constructive perhaps you could tell us which tool you would use in place of that much-hated spade. Your fellow anti-VC'ers are far more effective than you because they know how to make a substantive argument.
Speaking of substantive arguments, all riding philosophies, including "invisible cycling" and "VC" would agree that being "sensible, courteous, and aware" are keys to riding safely. The differences arise over defining "sensible" and "courteous." Is it "sensible" to hug the curb most of the time to stay "out of the way"? Or is it "sensible" to be farther to the left where you have more visibility and more manoeuvring room? Is it "courteous" or "sensible" to pass a line of traffic on the right? To run a red light? To ride in a door-zone bike lane? The list goes on.
So merely saying you support this or that way to ride because it promotes being "sensible, courteous, and aware" really doesn't say much.
. . . the assumption that VC would have/could have prevented an accident [gets old quickly]
Cyclists can prevent most accidents, even those that we aren't legally at fault for. (Of course, sometimes, there is nothing that could have been done.) But there's no point in posting accident stories if we don't try to learn from them. You are in a forum with "Safety" in its title. It's perfectly fair to discuss what might have made the cyclist safer.
If you think bike lanes or hugging the curb would have prevented an accident, you're perfectly free to say so and explain why you think what you think.
As to this case, we don't know who's at fault. If the cyclist was passing the truck on the right, she's at fault. If the truck driver started to pass the cyclist, but didn't clear her before he turned right, he's at fault. Even in the truck-driver's-fault scenerio, we don't know what the cyclist's lane position was. If she was within a few feet from the curb, being farther out would have decreased the chance of a right hook.
And one final note (not related to expatriate's post). Many people on the first few pages of this thread immediately called for the punishment of the driver without facts that prove the driver was at fault. This is a common reaction to cyclist-injured stories. In other threads, people have gone as far as to advocate that the drivers be raped. (I address that line of argument in this thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=143360).) Fortunately, the mods will delete a post that advocates raping someone, but it shows how extreme some people get.
If you don't really know what happenned, we can use what facts we do know to discuss safety issues, but we can't say for certain who was to blame.