sensationalism?

[closetbiker]

The last few days here have been beautiful spring days. The type that everyone loves to get out in and maybe even ride your bike.

Yesterday there was o death of a cyclist by a driver who drifted out of his lane, into a bike lane and into a cyclist that was riding the wrong way (westbound on an eastbound road)

Front page of this morning paper, a nice shot of a bike lane http://www.canada.com/images/NewsPages/Province/frontpage.jpg
where the cyclist was hit.

Open the paper up and you get a nice shot of the crushed bike and a broken helmet with the story.


Call for cellphone ban after death
Teen driver on cellphone runs over and kills 33-year-old woman cyclist

Lena Sin and Ian Austin, The Province
Published: Thursday, May 04, 2006

Doctors are calling for a cellphone ban for drivers following the death of a Chilliwack cyclist at the hands of a teen driver who police say was distracted by her phone.

And the B.C. Automobile Association wants a cellphone ban for novice drivers.

The fatality occurred when a new driver, a 17-year-old Chilliwack female, got distracted while using her cellphone and drove head-on into a 33-year-old mother of two, Tammy Karen Frost, who was riding a bicycle at about 5:15 p.m. on Tuesday.

"Surely this should be the event that causes the provincial government to ban cellphones for people driving," said Michael Golbey, president of the B.C. Medical Association.

"There is ample evidence that you can't safely drive and use a cellphone, eat your lunch, put on your makeup or update your Palm Pilot. Studies show that using a cellphone while driving quadruples the chance of having a collision . . .

"Newfoundland banned the use of cellphones while driving in 2002 . . . We again urge the premier and his cabinet to take leadership on this issue before another life is lost to careless driving."

BCAA spokesman Trace Acres said the BCAA and the Canadian Automobile Association are lobbying for a cellphone ban for novice drivers, those who have their L or N licence.

"These are fairly young, inexperienced drivers who should pay all their attention to driving," said Acres. "They already have a zero blood-alcohol restriction and a limit to passengers, so we think there should be a [cell] prohibition."

Solicitor-General John Les said he will once again look into the issue of drivers and cellphones. "This obviously is cause for us to have a look again and see if there has been an increase in fatalities," said Les.

The teen was driving a 1992 Honda Prelude east on Luckakuck Way when she drifted on to the shoulder -- a marked bicycle lane -- and collided with the westbound cyclist just west of Young Road.

Frost died of her injuries at Chilliwack General Hospital.

Chilliwack RCMP Const. Steve Hiscoe said Frost "was one of our street people" and had two children under 10. The children did not live with their mom and are believed to be in Vancouver with her former husband.

The driver, whose name has not been released, was not hurt. Hiscoe said police intend to recommend charges against her.

Police are trying to determine the speed of the car when it crashed. It is also unclear whether the teen was dialling or talking on her cellphone at the time.

Hiscoe urged drivers to pull over before using their cellphones. He also said he'd support a ban on talking on cellphones while driving if it reduced the number of crashes.

Just two weeks ago, Felicia Mitchell was given a two-year conditional sentence and a six-year driving ban for dangerous driving causing the death of John Heida in August 2004.

Court heard that Mitchell, 18 at the time of the fatal crash on the Pattullo Bridge, had been drinking and had left a bar and driven off in a friend's car. The friend called Mitchell on her cellphone, and was yelling at the teen to return the vehicle when Mitchell crossed the centre line and collided head-on with a vehicle driven by Heida, who died at the scene. lsin@png.canwest.com

iaustin@png.canwest.com
© The Vancouver Province 2006

I understand the point about distracted driving and using cell phones, but in all the comments of the people who I've heard talking about the situation not one person seemed to think there was any kind of a problem with riding on the wrong side of the road. I get the impression that everyone thinks the fact that the cyclist was in a bike lane and wearing a helmet absolves the cyclist of any blame. I also think the paper is taking this time of year, when many inexperienced bicycle riders dust of their bikes to go for a ride on a nice day and do stupid things like ride on the wrong side of the road (that angers drivers) and exploits a story while doing little to trying to understand the parts that led up to the death by focusing on 2 hot topics. Driving while talking on a cell phone and bicyclists being powerless in avoiding certain death on the road.

(PS while riding home from work after sunset last night, I encountered 5 cyclists riding with no lights)

[joejack951]

The reference to the completely unrelated crash (except for the cell phone) goes to show that the journalist had an agenda with that article. It's a shame as it would have been a great time to focus on the responsibilites of both drivers and cyclists when using public roads. [edit] Actually, before this accident happened and before the weather got nicer would have been even a better time to remind people of their responsibilities. [edit]

Reading the article, I might not have even caught on to the fact that the woman was riding against traffic if you had not pointed it out.

[noisebeam]

I get the impression that everyone thinks the fact that the cyclist was in a bike lane and wearing a helmet absolves the cyclist of any blame.
If the cyclist had been riding the correct way would this have prevented the accident?

Al

[jeff-o]

In this case, the cyclist would have been hit by the car whether she had been riding in the right direction or not.

I fully support a ban of cellphone use while driving. I've never understood the fascination with those things. People bug me enough when I'm near a landline phone, why should they be able to bother me when I'm not?

[ignominious]

You're right about the sensationalisation though. Do any related stubs or articles in the paper add to this to indicate what they might trying to acheive, or is it an easy Tragic Human Interest column?

[buzzman]

had the "wrong way" cyclist drifted into the path of the oncoming car resulting in the cell phone using driver's death I guess I would see her infraction as the greater wrong.

In this case, however, the driver's youthful indiscretion proves once again how dangerous it can be to try to talk on a phone and drive simultaneously and the press seems to be responsibly driving that point home.

[ignominious]

had the "wrong way" cyclist drifted into the path of the oncoming car resulting in the cell phone using driver's death I guess I would see her infraction as the greater wrong.

In this case, however, the driver's youthful indiscretion proves once again how dangerous it can be to try to talk on a phone and drive simultaneously and the press seems to be responsibly driving that point home.

The press often like to set themselves up as a voice of authority, be it moral, ethical, political, practical or whatever. It's perceived as adding credibility to their reporting and enhancing product loyalty. This one is a really easy stance to take. Fortunately it's a piece of media social manipulation that I have absolutely no issues with whatsoever. Certainly helped get a ban in place in the UK.

[joejack951]

Buzzman, look at the photo used for the cover story. What does that say at all about cellphone use? It shows a bike lane and refers to a fatality. To me, it's saying that drivers will be distracted and cyclist will die because of it. Message: don't bike, you'll die.

[Brian Ratliff]

In this case, the cyclist would have been hit by the car whether she had been riding in the right direction or not.

I fully support a ban of cellphone use while driving. I've never understood the fascination with those things. People bug me enough when I'm near a landline phone, why should they be able to bother me when I'm not?

1+

In this case, it is clearly the driver's responsibility to stay in their own lane. She didn't do that, hit someone, and shoulders all the responsibility for the accident, hence the police charges. Open and shut.

However, risk is mitigated to a certain extent if the cyclist is riding in the correct direction because the closing speed would be lower, giving all parties (actually mostly the distracted driver) a little more time to react. Helmet Head will argue that the "zone of attention" is limited by the bike lane and so bike lanes contributed, but the fact that the driver crossed into an area of the road to which they were not paying attention (if their "zone of attention" is indeed limited by bike lanes) minimizes the effect bike lanes have on this accident.

Indeed, the bike lane line will help with the drift problem by allowing a (less distracted) driver notice that they are drifting. However, if the driver was not even looking out her windshield (to notice that she was drifting), or looking without seeing, in my mind it is doubtful whether having a different lane configuration would have helped anything.

It might have helped if the cyclist was going the correct direction (of course, in this case, it would mean the cyclist was across the road from the driver who hit her, but that's not what I am talking about) because of the increased reaction time and decreased closing speed. It also might have mitigated the results of the collision to be hit from behind rather than head on. Impossible to tell though, and this is all speculation, of course.

[joejack951]

1+

In this case, it is clearly the driver's responsibility to stay in their own lane. She didn't do that, hit someone, and shoulders all the responsibility for the accident, hence the police charges. Open and shut.


It's also clearly the responsibility of the cyclist when using the public roads to follow all the rules of the road like going the same direction as traffic.

[closetbiker]

risk is mitigated to a certain extent if the cyclist is riding in the correct direction because the closing speed would be lower, giving all parties (actually mostly the distracted driver) a little more time to react...It might have helped if the cyclist was going the correct direction .. Impossible to tell though, and this is all speculation, of course.

That's what I would say. Being hit from behind at the speed differential with nothing in front of you is different than being hit head on at a combined speed and flying right into a solid object may have been the difference between life and death. Impossible to tell though, and this is all speculation, of course.

[closetbiker]

I wrote into the paper and said,

I hope people can learn from this story that bicycle
helmets and bicycle lanes do not prevent deaths or
collisions with automobiles and that riding the
wrong way on a road can lead to collisions.

This time of year I see many cyclists do exactly as
this unfortunate cyclist has done but somehow the
presense of a bicycle lane and a helmet seems to
lead them to believe they are safe. They are not.

Ride with the flow of traffic to be safe.

[JohnBrooking]

I wrote into the paper and said,

I hope people can learn from this story that bicycle
helmets and bicycle lanes do not prevent deaths or
collisions with automobiles and that riding the
wrong way on a road can lead to collisions.

This time of year I see many cyclists do exactly as
this unfortunate cyclist has done but somehow the
presense of a bicycle lane and a helmet seems to
lead them to believe they are safe. They are not.

Ride with the flow of traffic to be safe.
You probably didn't want to get too long-winded or technical, but I think it would have been better had you said something like what you said in a previous post about closing speed and reaction time. I can imagine someone reading this and dismissing it because they think you are alleging that the accident wouldn't have happened at all had the cyclist been riding the correct way, which we and they all know is clearly speculation. Without knowing why you are saying to ride correctly, I think they are more likely to simply take your last sentence and conclude "bicycling is dangerous, don't do it."

However, I commend you for taking the time to write it.

[Brian Ratliff]

It's also clearly the responsibility of the cyclist when using the public roads to follow all the rules of the road like going the same direction as traffic.

Um... of course. What's your point?

Getting hit head on and getting hit from behind both hurt and both have been proven fatal. Besides the fact that the cyclist would have been on the other side of the road in this case, how would flowing with traffic help in this instance? Traffic going opposite directions on the same road separated simply by a painted line is kind of standard for roads around the world. The problem with cyclists facing traffic is the increase in risk for crossing/intersection type accidents, of which, this was not one.

As someone once said, sometimes a pen is just a pen... ...and sometimes the obvious answer is actually the right one. No distraction, no collision.

[Brian Ratliff]

Didn't Ken Keefer get killed in a similar way, except that he was riding with traffic? Distractions, if you don't know how to handle them, can make you as good (or bad) a driver as a drunk. I vote for ridding the car of distractions, starting with cell phones. Not just hands to the ear phones. All cell phones.

[closetbiker]

You probably didn't want to get too long-winded or technical, but I think it would have been better had you said something like what you said in a previous post about closing speed and reaction time.

I thought the same thing just after I sent it. My wife got up this morning read it and said the same thing. I'm sure if the paper does print my letter, there'll be responses saying the collision would have still happened so hopefully, I'll get a chance to bring up the point.

Damm. The pleasure of instant communcation.

[closetbiker]

Didn't Ken Keefer get killed in a similar way, except that he was riding with traffic?

He was hit by a drunk driver who crossed over from the other side of the road. They were going in oppisite directions, on different sides of the street.

[AndrewP]

The article didnt say the cyclist was riding in the wrong direction. Many cycle lanes next to one-way motor traffic are two-way.

[Brian Ratliff]

He was hit by a drunk driver who crossed over from the other side of the road. They were going in oppisite directions, on different sides of the street.

That's my point. Distracted or drunk drivers are neglegent when they drift out of their lane and cause an accident. End of story. We do what we do from a cyclist's point of view, which would include traveling with traffic and all the VC stuff, but we should work the other end of the equation where and when we can. I take personal responsibility for accidents which happen around me, but I would never formally put the responsibility of avoiding all accidents on the shoulders of all cyclists.

All the stuff about the cyclist going the wrong way is just distraction and beside the point. Put it this way: if I knew a driver was distracted and drifting into my lane, I would rather be facing the problem to retain the possiblity of evasive action rather than being blindsided from behind, being that I would be hit in any case. (I never do this though because I never know for sure and it causes more problems than it solves.) The problem here is a driver who fails to pilot their car correctly because of a commonplace distraction. Eliminating the distraction eliminates this particular problem, irrespective of the action/non-action/lane positioning/cycling technique of the cyclist. If it were a ped standing in place instead of a wrong way cyclist, the ped would be just as dead.

[Brian Ratliff]

The article didnt say the cyclist was riding in the wrong direction. Many cycle lanes next to one-way motor traffic are two-way.

Right or wrong, we are talking about cycling in the anti-flow direction, which was almost certainly the case here as it was a drift onto the shoulder and a head-on collision. But you make a point. Opposing traffic on a single strip of asphalt separated merely by paint is perfectly common. The only difference in this case is that one line is yellow and the other is white.

[closetbiker]

The article didnt say the cyclist was riding in the wrong direction. Many cycle lanes next to one-way motor traffic are two-way.

It's a one way, and in the picture of the lane a directional arrow stencil is visable (above the bicycle stencil).

[closetbiker]

.All the stuff about the cyclist going the wrong way is just distraction and beside the point...Eliminating the distraction eliminates this particular problem, irrespective of the action/non-action/lane positioning/cycling technique of the cyclist. If it were a ped standing in place instead of a wrong way cyclist, the ped would be just as dead.

I agree an elimination of a distraction would be a good thing, but I think a wrong way cyclists adds to the problem.

A pedestrian has lateral movement, a cyclist does not. The pedestrian has a better chance of avoiding a head on collision because of that.

[lyledriver]

It is strange that the province only mentioned the 'wrongness' of the cyclist by using the term "head on".

..and if she were on the right side, who knows.. perhaps another teen would just pile up moms car, no human damage done.

Either way, I try not to read the province. The misleading headlines generally anger me.

[sbhikes]

You could argue that being wrong-way she could see it unfolding and thus had the best chance of taking a dive and getting out of the way. While if she had been hit from behind, she never would have seen it coming (unless she was watching the whole scene unfold in a rear view mirror).

Distracted driving kills all kinds of people all the time: other drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, and the distracted motorists themselves. It's a big problem that's only getting worse. For us to focus only on cyclists and helmets and lane positions etc is missing the bigger picture. Distracted driving kills people.

[Alox]

I think that the whole 'riding against traffic' angle is immaterial, if the cyclist wasn't moving at a very high speed. It's one thing for someone pulling 30km/h on a training ride (or me on a regular commute) to be hit head on at a closing speed of 90km/h (as opposed to merely being run down at a net speed of 30km/h), but I'd be willing to bet that the victim was not travelling particularly fast when they were hit. The photo of the crushed bike that accompanied the story showed the fork of the 80's era department store bike substantially caved in - nobody ever goes particularly fast on that type of bike - maybe 10 or 15 km/h.

Add to that, the fact that the accident occurred on a wide, flat, dry, paved road with good visibility, and I'd bet that the motorist was at or approaching the 80km/h provincial limit for non-urban roadways (as any driver would be, in a similar situation), when they were distracted.

In the one second that the driver was distracted, her vehicle travelled 22 meters (72 feet) while the cyclist travelled 4.5 meters (13 feet), not including the split-secod that the cyclist may have spent assessing the situation and reacting to it. Clearly the driver has the greater responsibility avoid the cyclist, (regardless of the direction of travel) rather than the other way around.

[closetbiker]

You could argue that being wrong-way she could see it unfolding and thus had the best chance of taking a dive and getting out of the way.

I don't think so. I started out riding on the wrongside of the road but found out traffic moves too fast to bail if a car drifts. A bike has bad lateral movement (unlike a pedestrian) plus, lets not forget the problems of wrong way cyclists at intersections when motorists don't see them coming because they're looking in the opposite direction for traffic.

Safe road use is built on everyone following the same set of rules that are researched to be sure the safest way for all travellers is what the law is.

[joejack951]

Um... of course. What's your point?

Getting hit head on and getting hit from behind both hurt and both have been proven fatal. Besides the fact that the cyclist would have been on the other side of the road in this case, how would flowing with traffic help in this instance? Traffic going opposite directions on the same road separated simply by a painted line is kind of standard for roads around the world. The problem with cyclists facing traffic is the increase in risk for crossing/intersection type accidents, of which, this was not one.

As someone once said, sometimes a pen is just a pen... ...and sometimes the obvious answer is actually the right one. No distraction, no collision.

No distraction, no collision? Maybe. There are so many other factors that lead to collisions that are amplified by riding against traffic that it should not be ignored as a major cause of the accident.

[Helmet Head]

In this case, it is clearly the driver's responsibility to stay in their own lane. She didn't do that, hit someone, and shoulders all the responsibility for the accident, hence the police charges. Open and shut.

Legally, yes.

But like they say, why be (right) if that means being dead right? In order to be safe and comfortable out there, we have to go beyond simply doing what's legally right.


However, risk is mitigated to a certain extent if the cyclist is riding in the correct direction because the closing speed would be lower, giving all parties (actually mostly the distracted driver) a little more time to react.
Agreed.


Helmet Head will argue that the "zone of attention" is limited by the bike lane and so bike lanes contributed, ...
Right.


... but the fact that the driver crossed into an area of the road to which they were not paying attention (if their "zone of attention" is indeed limited by bike lanes) minimizes the effect bike lanes have on this accident.
Huh? Okay, so you're agreeing to assume his zone of attention is limited by bike lanes. That means he's likely to not be aware that someone is in the bike lane. Then he decides to attend to a distraction (in this case a cell phone). Now consider if there was no bike lane, and his zone of attention included the space where the cyclist was riding (because it's his lane). In that case he would be aware of the cyclist's presence, and would choose to either not attend to the distraction, or at least take more care to not drift. But if he's not even aware of the cyclist's presence (since he's outside of the zone of attention), then he has no reason to take that extra care.


Indeed, the bike lane line will help with the drift problem by allowing a (less distracted) driver notice that they are drifting.
What? How is a driver attending to a distraction and not even looking at the road helped by a line that he does not even see?


However, if the driver was not even looking out her windshield (to notice that she was drifting), or looking without seeing, in my mind it is doubtful whether having a different lane configuration would have helped anything.
Oh, I see what you're saying. The part you're missing is you're starting to look at the situation later than I am. I'm starting earlier, at the point where the driver is still paying attention. The key is this: in the critical moments prior to the driver being tempted to take his or her eyes off the road in order to attend to a distraction, is he aware of the presence of the cyclist, or not? To me, that question is very important, because it only makes sense that if he is aware of the cyclist, he is less likely to choose to attend to the distraction (until he passes the cyclist) in the first place, and, even if he does decide to attend to the distraction anyway, if he's aware of the cyclist he is more likely to be careful not to drift. It's at the point prior to the driver making the decision of whether to attend to the distraction, where the zone of attention, and whether or not the bike lane stripe limits the scope of the zone, is relevant in determining what factor the bike lane plays in all this.

How many cyclists have to needlessly die because of bike lanes like this before you will concede that there might be something to my hypothesis? 5? 10? 50? 100?

[closetbiker]

I'm sure most who read the article say since the bike rider was in a bike lane, how could this happen, just as they are saying, it has to be the cell phone that's the problem.

It's just not that simple.

[buzzman]

Buzzman, look at the photo used for the cover story. What does that say at all about cellphone use? It shows a bike lane and refers to a fatality. To me, it's saying that drivers will be distracted and cyclist will die because of it. Message: don't bike, you'll die.


You're right. The photo says absolutely nothing about cell phone use but quite a bit about the consequences of inattention when driving.

And the victim could just as easily have been a pedestrian crossing the street and instead of a bike lane it could have been a crosswalk. In that case would it say to you that drivers will be distracted and people crossing the street in crosswalks will die because of it? The message being: don't walk, you'll die.

I'm sure pedestrians are killed with some frequency while crossing streets in crosswalks. Does that lead us to the conclusion that crosswalks are inherently dangerous because pedestrians have a false sense of security in a crosswalk and therefore all crosswalks should be removed?

I am not defending tabloid journalism, which obviously is the category of newspaper The Province falls into, but the text of the article makes a point I don't necessarily disagree with- that hand held cell phone use while driving is a dangerous distraction and can result in serious injury or death.

[joejack951]

You're right. The photo says absolutely nothing about cell phone use but quite a bit about the consequences of inattention when driving.

And the victim could just as easily have been a pedestrian crossing the street and instead of a bike lane it could have been a crosswalk. In that case would it say to you that drivers will be distracted and people crossing the street in crosswalks will die because of it? The message being: don't walk, you'll die.

I'm sure pedestrians are killed with some frequency while crossing streets in crosswalks. Does that lead us to the conclusion that crosswalks are inherently dangerous because pedestrians have a false sense of security in a crosswalk and therefore all crosswalks should be removed?

I am not defending tabloid journalism, which obviously is the category of newspaper The Province falls into, but the text of the article makes a point I don't necessarily disagree with- that hand held cell phone use while driving is a dangerous distraction and can result in serious injury or death.

I think the car industry has done a great job in making people think that traveling without the impenetrable shell of a car around you is too dangerous. I think the way this article is presented on the cover just furthers that idea. I do agree with the author that driving while talking on a cellphone is dangerous. I also think that the wrong way cyclist did their part in contributing to the collision. I also think the bike lane contributed by giving the false impression to the cyclist that they would be safe in the bike lane no matter which direction they rode.

I was being a bit over the top with my "don't bike, you'll die" comment but the short glimpses I get of the news any more seem to be aimed at making sure people never leave their homes, and yes, I'm bitter about it :)

[closetbiker]

Picked up the paper this morning, looked at the letters section, 5 letters, and mine didn't make it (I previously have had over 20 letters printed by this paper, mostly on bicycle related stories, so I don't think my letter was unpublishable).

All of them had to with the cell phone. 2 said don't blame the age of the driver, 2 said cell phones are to blame and 1 said to blame this on the cell phone is "madness".

The editorial called for a ban on cell phones when driving.

It was mentioned in the article that, "There is ample evidence that you can't safely drive and use a cellphone, eat your lunch, put on your makeup or update your Palm Pilot. but the focus is clearly on the cell phone and not much else. An agenda is in place even in an article that's supposed to focus on facts.

Keep the editorials and opinions on the ed/op page, and let me draw my own conclusions from the facts that should be laid out plainly in the article.

[LittleBigMan]

I understand the point about distracted driving and using cell phones, but in all the comments of the people who I've heard talking about the situation not one person seemed to think there was any kind of a problem with riding on the wrong side of the road.
The learning curve about proper cycling in the general motoring population seems to be a slow, long one. Some people trained in public service seem to know the ropes, but so many others still cling to old wive's tales like "it's safer to ride against traffic or on the sidewalk" that even journalists can overlook glaring omissions in their articles. I even heard of a popular local radio host that, during his morning show, advised everyone that a flashing yellow traffic light was a four-way stop.

[noisebeam]

I'm sure pedestrians are killed with some frequency while crossing streets in crosswalks. Does that lead us to the conclusion that crosswalks are inherently dangerous because pedestrians have a false sense of security in a crosswalk and therefore all crosswalks should be removed?
They are, its riskier using a x-walk than cycling.
Yes, this is a problem with marked x-walks. Unmarked x-walks have a lower accident/death rate. Adjusted for usage rate 2 accidents in marked x-walk for every 1 in an unmarked.
Some localities are hesitant to put in x-walks for this very reason: False sense of security.
http://www.cityofmesa.org/transportation/new/ped_cross.asp

Al

[joejack951]

They are, its riskier using a x-walk than cycling.
Yes, this is a problem with x-walks. Unmarked x-walks have a lower accident/death rate. Adjusted for usage rate 2 accidents in marked x-walk for every 1 in an unmarked.
Some localities are hesitant to put in x-walks for this very reason: False sense of security.
http://www.cityofmesa.org/transportation/new/ped_cross.asp

Al

Thanks for the stats, Al. I wanted to comment on x-walks instilling a false sense of security but I have little experience there and so refrained. I do not find that stat surprising at all.

[Brian Ratliff]

HH: I don't have time for a point to point response, but just to say that a driver should not have to take "special precautions" to not drift around cyclists, especially if the cyclist is in a different lane than the driver. The driver has the responsibility to maintain their lane position without drifting, regardless of distractions. The driver should not have to see a cyclist or any other obstruction to know when to keep their line.

Now, to clear things up, I don't believe that drivers have a "zone of attention" which is limited by the lane markings. Clearly, if their zone of attention is not limited by the lane markings then the driver is at fault, legally and morally. I was taking on your suggestion that even if their zone of attention is limited by the lane marking, the responsibility for this accident still rests fully on the driver's shoulders, regardless of the direction of the cyclist. Either argument leads to the same conclusion, that the driver should not be given a pass on drifting into a separate lane of the road.

That said, I don't mean to say that there are not defenses against this type of accident. Being closer to the road, i.e. on the left side of the bike lane or in the traffic lane itself, and keeping the closing speed down by traveling with traffic rather than against is the best defense we have, and a very effective one at that, against distracted drivers approaching from the rear. But this does not absolve the motorist of their responsibilities.

If distractions such as cell phones are causing accidents of the type we are discussing here, this problem needs to be attended to. Anything less is immoral. Some will say that cyclists should stick with keeping other cyclists in line and teach other cyclists the best defense against dangerous driving. Of course, this should be done. But at the same time, we are not the ones driving two tons of metal powered by 200 horses. We are not licensed to ride a certain way because we are not piloting a machine capable of killing other people. Drivers are. The primary duty of a driver (as delineated by the driver's license) is to pilot their car in a safe way. If something is allowed inside a car which is interferring with this duty, then that something needs to be removed. There is no such thing as convenience trumping duty.

In this case, this distraction was a cell phone. How do I know? Because it is not normal for cars to "drift" into a collision with a vehicle in a separate lane. If we allow for this behavior to become normal, then our traffic system will break down, and the roads will become a free for all. Yes, there are things cyclists can do in the meantime to protect themselves, but this is just a bandaid. Our techniques don't always work, and the problem still remains. Advocating doing nothing is okay when the solution is not obvious, but the solution here is obvious and to not advocate doing something about it is simply immoral.

[Brian Ratliff]

Picked up the paper this morning, looked at the letters section, 5 letters, and mine didn't make it (I previously have had over 20 letters printed by this paper, mostly on bicycle related stories, so I don't think my letter was unpublishable).

All of them had to with the cell phone. 2 said don't blame the age of the driver, 2 said cell phones are to blame and 1 said to blame this on the cell phone is "madness".

The editorial called for a ban on cell phones when driving.

It was mentioned in the article that,

"There is ample evidence that you can't safely drive and use a cellphone, eat your lunch, put on your makeup or update your Palm Pilot."

but the focus is clearly on the cell phone and not much else. An agenda is in place even in an article that's supposed to focus on facts.

Keep the editorials and opinions on the ed/op page, and let me draw my own conclusions from the facts that should be laid out plainly in the article.

Sometimes the solution, though, is that obvious. Your focus on the wrong directionness of the cyclist is ill spent. It is not normal for drivers to drift into other lanes from distraction. Nor is it acceptable. When I ride, whether in the traffic lane or in a bike lane, I have to trust that the drivers coming from behind are holding their line. There is no two ways around it. The whole VC technique is reliant on drivers holding their line. In fact, our whole road system is reliant on drivers holding their line. This is why drivers have licenses certifying that they can pilot their car safely.

I know, you're the guy who is all into personal responsibility and no mandates. This works when advocating against helmet laws for cyclists because it is only the single cyclist who makes the decision one way or another who gets hurt. The cyclist making the decision to wear or not wear a helmet is making a decision which only affects himself. Contrast this with a driver on a cell phone.

Cell phones are known distractions. Everyone has their anecdotes; even I have been guilty of using a cell phone on the road and I know first hand how distracting it is to try to dial and hold a conversation into a cell phone to a person I cannot see. But anecdotes aside, there are studies which quantify the lag in response time due to a cell phone. And many of these studies are unequivical. We are not talking about lagging reactions in the millisecond or tenths of a second range. We are talking multiple seconds lost because the driver was holding a conversation on a cell phone. And this is unique to cell phones. Eating while driving doesn't carry this risk. Tuning a radio is just as bad, but it is brief and can easily be mitigated by using presets and automatic scanners. Cell phone conversations are alone in the magnitude of their distraction.

You can make the argument for personal resonsibility and no mandates, but think of this. Unlike the cyclists who doesn't want to don a helmet, a driver who wants to use a cell phone is not affecting just his own risk of injury, but the the risk of injury to others around him. This type of behavior clearly must be subject to regulation. Our system of laws is made to restrict the actions of an individual when those actions can cause injury to others. This is clearly the case here. The best one can argue in defense of cell phone useage is that useage while driving affects nothing. There is no data that a cell phone can make one a better driver, and there is plenty of data that shows clearly that cell phones makes drivers worse.

To do nothing about this problem is criminal. This is why the article focuses on the cell phone part. A cyclist going the wrong way on the road affects only her own safety. A driver holding a conversation on a cell phone is a danger to all road users.

[Brian Ratliff]

What? How is a driver attending to a distraction and not even looking at the road helped by a line that he does not even see?


I want to clarify this comment. When attending to distractions, the driver still is looking out the windshield and is much more likely to notice a moving reference line (i.e. the white bike lane line) then they are to notice their drift against a cluttered backdrop.

[closetbiker]

Brian, my first focus is on the sensationalism of the paper, second, over-looking of a key factor in a death and third, there already is a law against driving while talking on a cell phone. It's called driving without due care and attention.

It is not normal for drivers to drift into other lanes from distraction but just about every year we lose a cyclist from this (most often the cyclist is hit from behind). The press isn't the same when the inattention is the fault of reaching for an object, or looking at a map as it is when the driver is talking on a cell phone.

I'm all for a mandate if the mandate is clear and effective, just like the driving without due care and attention law. I think a call for stricter enforcement of an existing law is most effective here. Not to do nothing.

[Brian Ratliff]

Brian, my first focus is on the sensationalism of the paper. Second, over looking of a key factor in a death and third, there already is a law against driving while talking on a cell phone. It's called driving without due care and attention. I think a call for stricter enforcement of an existing law is most effective here.

I don't see the sensationalistic aspect you are seeing. Perhaps you are misinterpreting what the subject of the article is about. It is clearly about the "call to ban cell phones" rather than "car kills cyclist"; a subtle but important distinction. That the car/bike incident incited the "call" is secondary - they also cite a different accident where the person crossed the centerline and hit a car head on. Taken in this context, the story sounds fairly balanced.

The only thing it is missing is the obligatory quote by the one person in the world who thinks convenience should trump safety. Papers in the US are frequently criticized by one side or another that they are "too balanced" by including obligatory quotes from extremists simply for the sake of "balance" which actually goes to lend unlegitimate weight to a view which very few people adopt. Here, it is kind of nice that the paper did not go out of their way to find someone who thinks that cell phones were irrelevent in the crash.

As to the "already have a law on the books need better enforcement," can't you make that argument, using your same law, about drunk driving? Driving while impaired, whether by distraction or by drink, is a special case which should be handled separately.

[buzzman]

HH: I don't have time for a point to point response, but just to say that a driver should not have to take "special precautions" to not drift around cyclists, especially if the cyclist is in a different lane than the driver. The driver has the responsibility to maintain their lane position without drifting, regardless of distractions. The driver should not have to see a cyclist or any other obstruction to know when to keep their line.

Now, to clear things up, I don't believe that drivers have a "zone of attention" which is limited by the lane markings. Clearly, if their zone of attention is not limited by the lane markings then the driver is at fault, legally and morally. I was taking on your suggestion that even if their zone of attention is limited by the lane marking, the responsibility for this accident still rests fully on the driver's shoulders, regardless of the direction of the cyclist. Either argument leads to the same conclusion, that the driver should not be given a pass on drifting into a separate lane of the road.

That said, I don't mean to say that there are not defenses against this type of accident. Being closer to the road, i.e. on the left side of the bike lane or in the traffic lane itself, and keeping the closing speed down by traveling with traffic rather than against is the best defense we have, and a very effective one at that, against distracted drivers approaching from the rear. But this does not absolve the motorist of their responsibilities.

If distractions such as cell phones are causing accidents of the type we are discussing here, this problem needs to be attended to. Anything less is immoral. Some will say that cyclists should stick with keeping other cyclists in line and teach other cyclists the best defense against dangerous driving. Of course, this should be done. But at the same time, we are not the ones driving two tons of metal powered by 200 horses. We are not licensed to ride a certain way because we are piloting a machine capable of killing other people. Drivers are. The primary duty of a driver (as delineated by the driver's license) is to pilot their car in a safe way. If something is allowed inside a car which is interferring with this duty, then that something needs to be removed. There is no such thing as convenience trumping duty.

In this case, this distraction was a cell phone. How do I know? Because it is not normal for cars to "drift" into a collision with a vehicle in a separate lane. If we allow for this behavior to become normal, then our traffic system will break down, and the roads will become a free for all. Yes, there are things cyclists can do in the meantime to protect themselves, but this is just a bandaid. Our techniques don't always work, and the problem still remains. Advocating doing nothing is okay when the solution is not obvious, but the solution here is obvious and to not advocate doing something about it is simply immoral.

++1 to both of your posts. Well articulated reasoned arguments using logic and free of dogma, histrionics, scare tactics and agenda free (other than making the world a safer place for cyclists). Kudos to Brian Ratliff!

[Brian Ratliff]

It is not normal for drivers to drift into other lanes from distraction but just about every year we lose a cyclist from this (most often the cyclist is hit from behind). The press isn't the same when the inattention is the fault of reaching for an object, or looking at a map as it is when the driver is talking on a cell phone.


First, we lose far more drivers to other drivers drifting than we do cyclists, so this is not limited to cyclist/driver interactions.

Second, the focus on cell phones is because 1) they are relatively new, and 2) it is non-intuitive that a driver can be distracted and not see what is clearly right in front of them. All the other distractions center on taking the eyes off the road. Cell phones are alone in that the driver can be facing forward, doing everything right, and still have slowed response times and miss seeing things. Can't fault a newspaper for writing about what is interesting.

[lego]

A more balanced article relating to this tragedy can be found at the link below:

[URL="http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/05/04/driver-cellphone.html"]

Bike lanes, safety equipement, riding with or against the flow of traffic - the fact is, nothing can save you from a distracted beginner (you can see her ICBC "N" sticker clearly showing in the car's rear window in the attached video) plowing 3000 lbs of automobile into your unsuspecting puss...

My heart goes out to this woman's friends and family, as well as to the teenager who will live with this on her conscience for the rest of her life.

There but for the love of Dog go I...

[closetbiker]

I'd like to see some more specific data on the drifting problem because overall traffic accidents have been reduced in the last 10 years in my province despite an increase in drivers and the explosion of cell phone use.

I do think a paper is being sensational when it prints large pictures of a marked spot in a bike lane where the cyclist died, a picture of a mangled bike and a broken helmet (all larger than the story itself). I think a bit of background about how often this type of thing has happened and is happening would be in order too, but that's just me.

Drinking and driving is a separate issue than driving without due care and attention because of the nature of how alcohol works. I also think someone on a cell phone should not be using it while driving but if we push for a cell phone specific law, it'll be at the expense of the driving without due care and attention so people drinking Slurpees, eating Big Macs, pulling up their email on their lap tops, will be missed so we can get the cell phone users only.

[Brian Ratliff]

Odd. If this is the same story, then the cyclist was actually riding with, not against, traffic. The driver crossed the centerline and struck her head-on in the opposite shoulder, similar to Ken Keefer's accident.

[Brian Ratliff]

I'd like to see some more specific data on the drifting problem because overall traffic accidents have been reduced in the last 10 years in my province despite an increase in drivers and the explosion of cell phone use.

I do think a paper is being sensational when it prints large pictures of a marked spot in a bike lane where the cyclist died, a picture of a mangled bike and a broken helmet (all larger than the story itself). I think a bit of background about how often this type of thing has happened and is happening would be in order too, but that's just me.

Drinking and driving is a separate issue than driving without due care and attention because of the nature of how alcohol works. I also think someone on a cell phone should not be using it while driving but if we push for a cell phone specific law, it'll be at the expense of the driving without due care and attention so people drinking Slurpees, eating Big Macs, pulling up their email on their lap tops, will be missed so we can get the cell phone users only.

Of course the headline and the picture are sensational. What do you expect the paper to do? The article itself is better written, but short on details. The second article is better and reveals that all the angst about the cyclist riding against traffic is dead wrong, which would explain why your letter didn't get published. The driver crossed the centerline to kill a cyclist riding in the correct fashion.

As to the "due care and attention" law, perhaps you are right, though for the wrong reasons. You might be right to not single out cell phones, but you are wrong to place cell phone conversations on the same level as eating or drinking (though I'd place email up there with cell phones). Eating, drinking and tuning a radio decrease reaction times because these activities take the eyes off the road. Cell phone use is more like alcohol consumption in that it actually slows the rate at which the brain takes in and processes information. This has been studied and the effect is the same with a hands on set as with a hands free set.

Note that it is conversation which dulls the senses, not information exchange. This is why some drivers are okay with using cell phones. Exchanging information does not require that much brain power. Comunicating in conversation does. Cell phone conversations are dangerous because it takes a lot of effort to hold a conversation without the benefit of seeing a person's gestures or facial expressions. Recieving a short grocery list from the wife is something different all-together.

[noisebeam]

Note that it is conversation which dulls the senses, not information exchange. This is why some drivers are okay with using cell phones. Exchanging information does not require that much brain power. Comunicating in conversation does. Cell phone conversations are dangerous because it takes a lot of effort to hold a conversation without the benefit of seeing a person's gestures or facial expressions. Recieving a short grocery list from the wife is something different all-together.
I don't believe this.
I never use the cell when driving but have attemped ~3 times, just the act of picking up the phone, pressing the answer button caused distraction. (more so than changing radio station which I choose to do at the time I want)
But what got me most is the idea that taking brain power to memorize a list (or getting directions if lost) is not distracting. I'd either make my wife unhappy and forget an item or two or else have to concentrate outside of my focus on my enviroment to memorize a list.

I do understand that my ability at multitasking is not the same as others and that some may have better skill at this, but all I can speak to is personal experience. Maybe I also prefer to put 100% of my focus on driving when driving. Even in car conversation is limited by mutual understanding to non serious subjects and that at any given time when I am driving I may ignore or not answer conversation without warning.

Al

[closetbiker]

I'd say the article is not only short on details, but it has a bias and is not balanced.

I missed the second article.

I'd also liketo see more specific data how cell phone drivers are getting into more accidents than others. The only study I recall recently was the one done by AAA where they put cameras in the cars of participants and recorded the habits of the drivers over a period of time. More people were "reaching and leaning", "manipulating audio controls", "eating and drinking", "grooming themselves", and reading and/or writing things down" than talking on cell phones.

Now if the smaller group of cell phone users had more accidents than those who might be reaching for that Van Halen tape (or turning it up) or Slurpee gulpers, I'd be in favor of more specific action against cell phone use, but with all the use of these things, I haven't seen a clear connection (despite what I believe is an unnecessary distraction) in any collision reports.

[Brian Ratliff]

I don't believe this.
I never use the cell when driving but have attemped ~3 times, just the act of picking up the phone, pressing the answer button caused distraction. (more so than changing radio station which I choose to do at the time I want)
But what got me most is the idea that taking brain power to memorize a list (or getting directions if lost) is not distracting. I'd either make my wife unhappy and forget an item or two or else have to concentrate outside of my focus on my enviroment to memorize a list.

I do understand that my ability at multitasking is not the same as others and that some may have better skill at this, but all I can speak to is personal experience. Maybe I also prefer to put 100% of my focus on driving when driving. Even in car conversation is limited by mutual understanding to non serious subjects and that at any given time when I am driving I may ignore or not answer conversation without warning.

Al

This is simply because you don't know your phone! ;) I have this problem as well, but not everybody does. People memorize differently, some are visual (they "see" the words on the list in their head) and some are audial (sp?) (they hear the person saying the words in their head). A curious experiment can be carried out to find out which you are, but I forget the details at the moment. The point is that a simple exchange of information, yes, no, a short list, is mechanical and does not involve much processing power of the brain. Conversation involves visualizing the reactions and gestures and facial expressions of the person you are talking with. This interferes directly with processing your driving environment outside your windshield.

You are right about holding conversations with the person sitting beside you, though if the person is there, some signals can get through without having to visualize them from scratch, so it is not as bad as a phone conversation.

[Helmet Head]

I want to clarify this comment. When attending to distractions, the driver still is looking out the windshield and is much more likely to notice a moving reference line (i.e. the white bike lane line) then they are to notice their drift against a cluttered backdrop.
I have absolutely no reason to believe that a BL stripe inside of a WOL makes it any easier to not inadvertently drift. For the driver who is actually looking out the windshield, the stripe on his side of the car, just to his left, is all that is required. The pavement to the right could go on for a hundred feet unmarked, and the attentive driver will still follow a straight path relative to the center or lane stripe to his left, if he's paying attention at all. And if he's not paying attention (which is the situation we're talking about), a stripe to the right won't matter either, because he's attenting to a distraction and not paying attention. The only exception to this might be at night when driving into oncoming headlight high beams, at which point the fog line or BL stripe to the right actually comes into play for guidance purposes. But such an extremely-poor-visibility exception is a separate issue, for that is not the type of situation we're talking about here.