Bicycle Hits, Kills Man Crossing NW Street [Wash. Post Article]

[Slow Train]

By Clarence Williams and Martin Weil
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, February 4, 2007; Page C04


A man was struck by a bicycle and killed yesterday while trying to cross the street in Northwest Washington, D.C. police said.

The man, who appeared to be in his 60s, was hit about 5:30 p.m. while walking across New Hampshire Avenue in the Petworth area, police said.

Bicycle Hits, Kills Man Crossing Street (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/03/AR2007020301735.html)


Article points out that this is a very rare event but before we chalk it up to being just a freak occurrence lets remind ourselves that most accidents have contributing factors.

Was the cyclist riding faster than prudent? In an urban environment shouldn't we ride well within the ability of the bike and our reaction times to be able to quickly stop or avoid?

I know as a cyclist I demand any vehicle do the above. Shouldn't pedestrians also have the right to expects this from cyclists as well?

[DM4]

There is some missing information here. Was the pedestrian crossing at a cross walk? Was the pedestrian crossing at an intersection? If so, was he crossing with or against the light. Was the pedestrian J-walking? Was the cyclist riding in the proper direction, i.e on the right side of the road? Did the cyclist ride through a red traffic signal? Did the cyclist fail to yield at crosswalk?

The cyclist is required to obey all traffic laws the same as the operator of a motor vehicle. With respect to the speed of the cyclist see the previuos statement. He is permitted to go as fast as he is capable provided he does not exceed the speed limit. There are no special speed restrictions for cyclists.

Without more information fault can not be determined. It may be the cyclists fault and it may be the pedestrians fault. Just because the pedestrian died as a result of this collision it does not cause the blame to fall upon the cyclist.

Furthermore, if it is found that the pedestrian is at fault as the cyclist I would be looking for compensation from the pedestrians homeowner's insurer for damages to my bicycle, medical costs, and time lost from work.

[CommuterRun]

Regardless what caused the crash or who was at fault, the point I take away from this is that someone on a bicycle can, and does, kill pedestrians just as dead as if the pedestrian had been struck by a car.

The "......when my bike becomes as dangerous as a car......" arguement that pops up from time to time, just flew out the window, again.

[bmclaughlin807]

Regardless what caused the crash or who was at fault, the point I take away from this is that someone on a bicycle can, and does, kill pedestrians just as dead as if the pedestrian had been struck by a car.

The "......when my bike becomes as dangerous as a car......" arguement that pops up from time to time, just flew out the window, again.

Right. Let me know the next time someone plows through a crowded market on their bike and kills 10 people. Or drives through someone's bedroom wall and kills someone sleeping in their bed.

[MrCjolsen]

Was the cyclist riding faster than prudent? In an urban environment shouldn't we ride well within the ability of the bike and our reaction times to be able to quickly stop or avoid?


Only if you are riding on the sidewalk or on a MUP that has a lot of pedestrian traffic. Otherwise, the safest speed for a bike is as close to the speed of automotive traffic that you can physically muster. And that goes for riding on the shoulder or bike lane as well.

[wheel]

Regardless what caused the crash or who was at fault, the point I take away from this is that someone on a bicycle can, and does, kill pedestrians just as dead as if the pedestrian had been struck by a car.

The "......when my bike becomes as dangerous as a car......" arguement that pops up from time to time, just flew out the window, again.
A cyclist can also kill themselves.
What about the indirect dangers? Pollution noise, air, land, waste, water.
Yea Peds rule.

[closetbiker]

the man fell and struck his head after the collision

The leading cause of head injury is falling

In 2005, it was reported that about 90 pedestrians or bicyclists are killed each year in the Washington area.

Funny, Google "pedestrian deaths washington dc" and you get a Washington Post article that says,

The District had 16 pedestrian fatalities this year, up from an average of 12 annually during the past three years

Google bicyclist deaths Washington DC and I got a NHTSA document that shows Pedalcyclist Traffic Fatalities in DC are 3.

...sounds like 90 pedestrians or bicyclists in the area is a little misleading because it insinuates the problem is bigger than it is.

[Daily Commute]

This story proves that cyclists can cause death. The incidents are thankfully rare, but that doesn't help this man's family in any way.

This story gives a perspective on the thread about buzzing pedestrians (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=265224). Just don't do it.

[chipcom]

While this story proves that cyclists can cause death, the incidents are thankfully rare. But that doesn't help this man's family in any way.

This story gives a perspective on the thread about buzzing pedestrians (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=265224). Just don't do it.

I was about to post the same thread link - thanks. ;)

[Daily Commute]

I was about to post the same thread link - thanks. ;)
Your welcome. The more mentions the better. We cyclists need to remember that even though we're not as dangerous as drivers of cars, and even though we'll likely hurt ourselves in any accident, we can hurt people, too.

[Eli_Damon]

Only if you are riding on the sidewalk or on a MUP that has a lot of pedestrian traffic. Otherwise, the safest speed for a bike is as close to the speed of automotive traffic that you can physically muster. And that goes for riding on the shoulder or bike lane as well.

I disagree. Just as it is not always safe to drive a car at the speed limit, there are many scenarios in which I think it is unsafe to ride a bike as fast as physically possible, even if other traffic is going faster. For example:

* if the asphalt is in bad condition
* if I'm going down a steep, windy hill
* if it is very dark
* if the road is icy

Not knowing the details of this incident where the pedestrian died, I can't assign fault. However, regardless of what type of vehicle you use, you must keep your speed low enough so that you can keep control of it under any reasonably anticipatable circumstances. That you were going the speed limit or that you were going the same speed as everyone else is not a valid excuse.

[MrCjolsen]

I disagree. Just as it is not always safe to drive a car at the speed limit, there are many scenarios in which I think it is unsafe to ride a bike as fast as physically possible, even if other traffic is going faster. For example:

* if the asphalt is in bad condition
* if I'm going down a steep, windy hill
* if it is very dark
* if the road is icy

Not knowing the details of this incident where the pedestrian died, I can't assign fault. However, regardless of what type of vehicle you use, you must keep your speed low enough so that you can keep control of it under any reasonably anticipatable circumstances. That you were going the speed limit or that you were going the same speed as everyone else is not a valid excuse.

If the asphalt is in bad condition, then your fastest speed will be lower due to rolling resistance. Remember, you are a bike, not a motorcycle and your power output is limited. Still, you must go as fast as you can.

On a steep windy hill, common sense should prevail. But if automotive traffic is going 45 down such a road, then I'm safer at 35 or 40 than I am at 20.

It it's very dark, then I should have a light that's bright enough that I can see ahead of my stopping distance. If not, I should stay on lighted roads.

And if the road is icy, Why am I out on my bike?

[DM4]

This story proves that cyclists can cause death. The incidents are thankfully rare, but that doesn't help this man's family in any way.

This story gives a perspective on the thread about buzzing pedestrians (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=265224). Just don't do it.

Ok, are we are assuming it is the cyclist’s fault? If it is, then yes I feel for the pedestrian's family and compensation is due. If it turns out to be the pedestrian’s fault, then screw him for putting himself and the cyclist in danger and his family will just have to suck it up. If it turns out to be the fault of the pedestrian then my sympathies go out to the cyclist's family.

[chipcom]

Still, you must go as fast as you can.


Say what?

On a steep windy hill, common sense should prevail. But if automotive traffic is going 45 down such a road, then I'm safer at 35 or 40 than I am at 20.

Yeah, it hurts a lot less when you crash at 35 or 40. :rolleyes:


And if the road is icy, Why am I out on my bike?

Why not?

[DM4]

On a steep windy hill, common sense should prevail. But if automotive traffic is going 45 down such a road, then I'm safer at 35 or 40 than I am at 20.




But the best reason is that going fast is FUN:D. I love the thrill of catching the slowly acclerating truck or bus at a traffic signal and then motorpacing. I have motorpaced in excess of 60 MPH. That is a rush!

[Daily Commute]

Ok, are we are assuming it is the cyclist’s fault? If it is, then yes I feel for the pedestrian's family and compensation is due. If it turns out to be the pedestrian’s fault, then screw him for putting himself and the cyclist in danger and his family will just have to suck it up. If it turns out to be the fault of the pedestrian then my sympathies go out to the cyclist's family.
I was careful not to say who was at fault in this accident. My point was that cyclists can kill pedestrians. Regardless of whose fault this was, it proves that pedestrians can dies in cyclist-pedestrian accidents.

Someone had just started a thread about the joys of buzzing careless pedestrians. I think that's stupid, reckless, and dangerous.

If the asphalt is in bad condition, then your fastest speed will be lower due to rolling resistance. Remember, you are a bike, not a motorcycle and your power output is limited. Still, you must go as fast as you can.

Not true. If the pavement is irregular (lots of potholes and cracks, for example), rolling resistance is not what slows you down. Fear of hitting a pothole too fast and flying over your handlebars slows you down.


On a steep windy hill, common sense should prevail. But if automotive traffic is going 45 down such a road, then I'm safer at 35 or 40 than I am at 20.
Sometimes yes, sometimes, no.


And if the road is icy, Why am I out on my bike?
Because you were smart enough to buy the right kind of tires.

[BroMax]

The only close encounter I've ever had with a ped was on the Seaside Promenade. It was not very crowded but there was a woman about eight seconds ahead of me. I gave a brief ring, just so I did not surprise her. She looked at me and moved to the edge of the pavement; but she was so involved in her telephone conversation that she must have forgot, so that she stepped into my path, with her back to me, when I was about two seconds away. I was able to avoid a collision the close encounter might have distracted her from her conversation for a moment.

Everywhere I have lived has a "basic speed law" whereby one can be cited for driving faster than is safe regardless of the posted speed limit. In my judgement, I was operating at a safe speed but I was assuming ordinary attentiveness from others who were sharing the right of way.

[SamHouston]

...sounds like 90 pedestrians or bicyclists in the area is a little misleading because it insinuates the problem is bigger than it is.

Not to US citizens in major cities. It's always "the area", metro area, greater area. Even cities that aggressively annex development on their borders are far outpaced by development. One example, Fort Bend County near H-town, AKA First Colony (ugh) well over a million people in that suburb & they likely all consider themselves Houston. Gotta consider the "area" when it has that many people, in just one direction, even if they are 25-30 miles from the core. Houston is big, the Metro Area, is huge.

[ghettocruiser]

you must go as fast as you can.

I have this written on my handlebar stem with a sharpie.:D

I *partly* agree that I feel safer under *most* conditions when I am going fast enough to significantly drop the overtaking speed of traffic, or eliminate overtaking traffic altogether. As much as it sometimes gets downplayed on BF, overtaking collisions remain the most common fatal accident type around here based on the mosr recent figures available.

But the reality is that only in the summer on my road bike can I realistically keep up with automobile traffic on suburban streets in a non-traffic jam situation. Wind, bad roads, debris, marginal lighting slow me down.

Of course in the winter it is even worse, it generally puts me at less than half the speed of cars when roads are bare.

To address the original post, I don't think it's reasonable to expect cyclists to be held to some arbitrary lower speed limit than motorists in the event of an accident. The newspaper article seemed to be playing up how "fast" the bike was going, and seemed to deliberately skimp on details of what caused the actual collision.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Someone had just started a thread about the joys of buzzing careless pedestrians. I think that's stupid, reckless, and dangerous.
Someone can be found to say all sorts of stupid things. Some of them even start dopey threads, looking for validation of their own dopey behavior. No one agreed with the OP on the joy of buzzing pedestrians, or on his rationale for such behavior either.

[Blue Order]

Regardless what caused the crash or who was at fault, the point I take away from this is that someone on a bicycle can, and does, kill pedestrians just as dead as if the pedestrian had been struck by a car.

The "......when my bike becomes as dangerous as a car......" arguement that pops up from time to time, just flew out the window, again.+1

COBs suck. (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=265224)

[closetbiker]

Not to US citizens in major cities. It's always "the area", metro area, greater area. Even cities that aggressively annex development on their borders are far outpaced by development. One example, Fort Bend County near H-town, AKA First Colony (ugh) well over a million people in that suburb & they likely all consider themselves Houston. Gotta consider the "area" when it has that many people, in just one direction, even if they are 25-30 miles from the core. Houston is big, the Metro Area, is huge.

What does "the area" mean? Does it include the area north to Baltimore or south in Virginia?

When the article says this happened in Washington, D.C, and the Post previously reported an average of 12 deaths a year of pedestrians and 3 deaths are reported by the NHTSA in Washington DC, how do they come up with 90 deaths and feel it's representative of deaths in Washington DC? They coud have just as well said there were thousands of deaths and be just as informative.

[staehpj1]

What does "the area" mean? Does it include the area north to Baltimore or south in Virginia?
It depends on whether you are trying to overstate the number or not. To come up with the number 90 it would probably have to be a VERY big area.

[closetbiker]

It depends on whether you are trying to overstate the number or not. To come up with the number 90 it would probably have to be a VERY big area.

...and to include cyclists with pedestrians is not very enlightening either.

It's often thought that cyclists run higher risks and have higher fatalities and injuries than pedestrians, but often this just isn't the case, so they package things up to make them look like they do.

[MSPD]

And now over to sneakerforums.net:

Helmet Foot: If the pedestrian was at the intersection crossing with the light, clearly the cyclist was at fault. Practially speaking, the pedestrian was walking where the cyclist would be unlikely to be looking for a person (in the crosswalk). The pedestrian should have chosen a more conspicuous position, e.g. at the cross-point of an "X" drawn from all corners of the intersection and perhaps could have been paying more attention himself. Obviously pedestrian "facilities" such as crosswalks and blinking walk/don't walk lights should be eliminated and their inventor killed.

Walkologist: Jesus, HH, the man's body isn't even cool yet you a-hole. Thoughts and prayers to the family.

shbikes: Personally, I never walk unless I'm in a walkway encapsulated in bullet- and bomb-proof glass and is at least 50 yards away from the nearest bicycle.

nosebeam: It seems to me both parties paying attention and being more careful would have been prudent. That's my approach.


(OK folks....you can continue the skit....I'm out of time unfortunately)

[Blue Order]

And now over to sneakerforums.net:...:roflmao:

[CB HI]

The witness, Adam Bansfield, said the pedestrian was walking toward some nearby stores and might have passed behind a car that was halted near New Hampshire Avenue and Farragut Street.
Although not clearly stated, the quote provides some implication that the pedestrian was j-walking and stepped out behind a stopped or parked car.

[AlmostTrick]

And now over to sneakerforums.net:

Helmet Foot: If the pedestrian was at the intersection crossing with the light, clearly the cyclist was at fault. Practially speaking, the pedestrian was walking where the cyclist would be unlikely to be looking for a person (in the crosswalk). The pedestrian should have chosen a more conspicuous position, e.g. at the cross-point of an "X" drawn from all corners of the intersection and perhaps could have been paying more attention himself. Obviously pedestrian "facilities" such as crosswalks and blinking walk/don't walk lights should be eliminated and their inventor killed.

Walkologist: Jesus, HH, the man's body isn't even cool yet you a-hole. Thoughts and prayers to the family.

shbikes: Personally, I never walk unless I'm in a walkway encapsulated in bullet- and bomb-proof glass and is at least 50 yards away from the nearest bicycle.

nosebeam: It seems to me both parties paying attention and being more careful would have been prudent. That's my approach.


(OK folks....you can continue the skit....I'm out of time unfortunately)

ILIKE2WALK: Leave it to the self appointed "serious" walkers to come up with all kinds of goofy theories that have no basis in reality. Maybe all you safety nannies should just shut up. By the way, did you see that spectacular play a guy made in some trivial game yesterday?

[SamHouston]

What does "the area" mean? Does it include the area north to Baltimore or south in Virginia?


It's different everywhere, they may have meant all of DC & a touch of Maryland & Virgina, the only thing they need to know is how far some fool will commute, & then it's "in the area".

A dozen sounds about right for ped deaths in a core & core area ped deaths get more attention in many US cities because it can be the only area where authorities have to manage peds en masse. Everywhere else, you drive, no peds, no problem. Often only kids & poor immigrants walk anywhere outside a loop. I've had friends, not kids or poor immigrants themselves, be asked by passing drivers if they were okay, if they needed help, because they were walking somewhere & it's that unusual. Houstons got the sprawl bad like though, it's not that bad in many other places.

[noisebeam]

pedestrian "facilities" such as crosswalks and blinking walk/don't walk lights should be eliminated
Actually there is evidence that marked crosswalks are more dangerous than unmarked.

After being adjusted for usage rate, (in a San Diego study) pedestrians are 2x more likely to be hit in a marked crosswalk vs. an marked one. Marked crosswalks give pedestrians a false sense of security.

http://cityofmesa.org/transportation/Pedestrian_Crosswalks.aspx

http://www.walkinginfo.org/pdf/rd/crosswalk_021302.pdf

Al

[Keith99]

The witness, Adam Bansfield, said the pedestrian was walking toward some nearby stores and might have passed behind a car that was halted near New Hampshire Avenue and Farragut Street.
Although not clearly stated, the quote provides some implication that the pedestrian was j-walking and stepped out behind a stopped or parked car.

Perhaps. what is said there also fits for a pedestrian crossing at the light, in the crosswalk, until he encounters a car that has pulled too far forward and he choses to pass behind the car.

Note the word BEHIND. Why would it make any difference if the pedestrian walks behind a car unless the cyclist in question is going the wrong way? If the cyclist was riding with traffic then a pedestrian walking behind a car would be of no consequence as it would not obstruct the cyclists view.

Or of course it could just be sloppy writing as news has to be written quickly and they do not expect people to parse it out to infer details that are not mentioned.

[San Rensho]

And as usual, with no real facts, everyone is speculating and getting into heated, name calling arguments about what MIGHT have happened.

If nothing else, this forum is consistent.

[Helmet Head]

And as usual, with no real facts, everyone is speculating and getting into heated, name calling arguments about what MIGHT have happened.

Given that we will never find out what actually happened for sure, what's wrong with speculating and debating about what may or may not have happened, and, if it did, what the ramifications are assuming any particular given speculative scenario IS what happened?

[Helmet Head]

Actually there is evidence that marked crosswalks are more dangerous than unmarked.

After being adjusted for usage rate, (in a San Diego study) pedestrians are 2x more likely to be hit in a marked crosswalk vs. an marked one. Marked crosswalks give pedestrians a false sense of security.

http://cityofmesa.org/transportation/Pedestrian_Crosswalks.aspx

http://www.walkinginfo.org/pdf/rd/crosswalk_021302.pdf

Al
Thanks for digging this up Al.

It's a fascinating study. the ramifications of which I think most here are yet to realize and appreciate.

[LittleBigMan]

I don't know exactly what happened, but the story makes me think about how silent bikes are, how invisible they can be, and how quickly a pedestrian can step out in front of a fast-moving one.

[invisiblehand]

Just in case people are interested in the nature of the problem in Washington DC ...

http://ddot.dc.gov/ddot/frames.asp?doc=/ddot/lib/ddot/information/bicycle/pdf/ped_crash_summary.pdf

There are a lot of reasons to report the statistics for a particular municipality versus the greater area; I doubt that the reporter was trying to advance some alternative agenda as opposed to grabbing the most convenient statistic. Remember that the Washington Post audience includes the surrounding counties which--in total--have a greater population compared to the District proper.

The local cycling groups have been discussing the issue as well. As of a few minutes ago, I have not seen any updates to the story. When I read more details, I will post something here.

We recently had a cold spell hit the area. Based on pure conjecture, my guess is that the cyclist and pedestrian were both in a hurry because of the temperature. It doesn't answer who, in a legal sense, has responsibility for the accident.

[Helmet Head]

Just in case people are interested in the nature of the problem in Washington DC ...

http://ddot.dc.gov/ddot/frames.asp?doc=/ddot/lib/ddot/information/bicycle/pdf/ped_crash_summary.pdf

There are a lot of reasons to report the statistics for a particular municipality versus the greater area; I doubt that the reporter was trying to advance some alternative agenda as opposed to grabbing the most convenient statistic. Remember that the Washington Post audience includes the surrounding counties which--in total--have a greater population compared to the District proper.

The local cycling groups have been discussing the issue as well. As of a few minutes ago, I have not seen any updates to the story. When I read more details, I will post something here.

We recently had a cold spell hit the area. Based on pure conjecture, my guess is that the cyclist and pedestrian were both in a hurry because of the temperature. It doesn't answer who, in a legal sense, has responsibility for the accident.
Practically speaking (NOT legally), every single person has the responsibility to at least himself to avoid being involved in a crash. Allowing oneself to be involved in any kind of crash is a failure to meet that fundamental responsiblity, regardless of who is primarily at fault for the crash.

[invisiblehand]

Practically speaking (NOT legally), every single person has the responsibility to at least himself to avoid being involved in a crash. Allowing oneself to be involved in any kind of crash is a failure to meet that fundamental responsiblity, regardless of who is primarily at fault for the crash.

Agreed.

[ghettocruiser]

Allowing oneself to be involved in any kind of crash is a failure to meet that fundamental responsiblity, regardless of who is primarily at fault for the crash.

Let's recap my entire history of auto accidents as an illustration:

1) Hit from behind lined up in traffic at a red light.
2) Hit from behind lined up in traffic at a stop sign.
3) Hit from behind in heavy freeway traffic by a semi-truck whose driver fell asleep.
4) Smashed into in parking lot while sitting in the parked car with the engine off.

Man, I've had a lot of failures considering how little I drive. Good thing my insurance agent doesn't embrace this messed-up view. :rolleyes:

[Helmet Head]

Let's recap my entire history of auto accidents as an illustration:

1) Hit from behind lined up in traffic at a red light.
2) Hit from behind lined up in traffic at a stop sign.
How long were you stopped before you were hit? That is, were you hit from somebody who was following you, and didn't notice as you slowed to a stop, or were you stopped for a while and then somebody just showed up and rear-ended you?

3) Hit from behind in heavy freeway traffic by a semi-truck whose driver fell asleep.
Any sign that he was falling asleep (weaving, etc.) before he hit you, or were you not paying attention?

4) Smashed into in parking lot while sitting in the parked car with the engine off.
Were you in a parking space?

Man, I've had a lot of failures considering how little I drive. Good thing my insurance agent doesn't embrace this messed-up view. :rolleyes:
Perhaps he should.

[ghettocruiser]

Lets take HH's Auto Insurance Eligibility Quiz:

How long were you stopped before you were hit? That is, were you hit from somebody who was following you, and didn't notice as you slowed to a stop, or were you stopped for a while and then somebody just showed up and rear-ended you?

I had been at a dead stop in both cases for around 10 seconds. My car had working brake lights that were engaged (or at least it did before it was hit). Other vehicles were stopped in front of and beside me.


Any sign that he was falling asleep (weaving, etc.) before he hit you, or were you not paying attention?


I clearly saw him approaching, centered in the left lane in the expected fashion, as I slowed for congestion ahead. Then he drifted over into my lane and ran in the back of me. You might refer to it as inadvertent drift, freeway version I indeed saw him drift a moment before he hit me, but due to obstructing traffic in all other lanes I could only accelerate as a prevention measure in the limited space I had. Not enough to keep me from being caught on his front bumper and ground into the guardrail. The “fell asleep” terminology came from the investigating officer. He did seem a bit dazed to me.



Were you in a parking space?


Before I was hit, I was in a marked parking spot. After I was hit, I was diagonal in two marked parking spots.


Perhaps he should.


I only list above the accidents that involved a vehicle I was driving. While cycling I have seen many similar accidents, including numerous collisions where cars stopped at red lights were hit, very hard, from behind. On one occasion the vehicle was struck hard enough to slide through the entire intersection and narrowly miss me on my bike.


You seem skeptical that these sorts of incidents can happen to people that are following the letter of the law and not doing something wrong themselves.

To me, this indicates you perhaps have more faith in the abilities of the drivers of vehicles around you than may be warranted, unless the drivers in your community are somehow much better than elsewhere.

[Blue Order]

How long were you stopped before you were hit? That is, were you hit from somebody who was following you, and didn't notice as you slowed to a stop, or were you stopped for a while and then somebody just showed up and rear-ended you?


Any sign that he was falling asleep (weaving, etc.) before he hit you, or were you not paying attention?


Were you in a parking space?


Perhaps he should.Put a sock in it, freakshow.

[Helmet Head]

Lets take HH's Auto Insurance Eligibility Quiz:



I had been at a dead stop in both cases for around 10 seconds. My car had working brake lights that were engaged (or at least it did before it was hit). Other vehicles were stopped in front of and beside me.



I clearly saw him approaching, centered in the left lane in the expected fashion, as I slowed for congestion ahead. Then he drifted over into my lane and ran in the back of me. You might refer to it as inadvertent drift, freeway version I indeed saw him drift a moment before he hit me, but due to obstructing traffic in all other lanes I could only accelerate as a prevention measure in the limited space I had. Not enough to keep me from being caught on his front bumper and ground into the guardrail. The “fell asleep” terminology came from the investigating officer. He did seem a bit dazed to me.




Before I was hit, I was in a marked parking spot. After I was hit, I was diagonal in two marked parking spots.





I only list above the accidents that involved a vehicle I was driving. While cycling I have seen many similar accidents, including numerous collisions where cars stopped at red lights were hit, very hard, from behind. On one occasion the vehicle was struck hard enough to slide through the entire intersection and narrowly miss me on my bike.


You seem skeptical that these sorts of incidents can happen to people that are following the letter of the law and not doing something wrong themselves.

To me, this indicates you perhaps have more faith in the abilities of the drivers of vehicles around you than may be warranted, unless the drivers in your community are somehow much better than elsewhere.
I don't deny that there are some crashes which are entirely the fault of someone, and the other could not do anything about it. But, those are relatively rare.

Especially considering you say you drive very little, you seem to have had more than your share of such crashes. Still, just like somebody is bound to win the lottery, somebody is bound to be involved in a handful of highly unlikely crashes in his life.

But I think it's a mistake to generalize from your unusual case and assume these are normal experiences that we all can expect to encounter, just like we shouldn't all go out and spend our life savings on lottery tickets because we heard someone won.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Put a sock in it, freakshow.
+1

[uncorrect]

HH you sure do use lottery tickts as an analogy in alot of things.
How's this one for you?
Are the chances better that someone will win the lottery tomorrow or that you will one day get killed by either
a.) taking your own stupid/dangerous advice
b.) someone getting pissed at you for being a freaking moron
???

Do you even ride a bicycle? Or do you just lurk in the A&S forum waiting for chances to jump into a thread that no one really cares about you in? From looking at your post history I'm willing to bet it's the latter.

[chephy]

And if the road is icy, Why am I out on my bike? Because you have studded tires? ;)

[Daily Commute]

HH is right. Even when not at fault, you can prevent a lot of accidents by just paying attention. My guess is that if either the cyclists or the ped in the OP had been paying more attention, this accident would not have happened.

[Helmet Head]

HH you sure do use lottery tickts as an analogy in alot of things.
How's this one for you?
Are the chances better that someone will win the lottery tomorrow or that you will one day get killed by either
a.) taking your own stupid/dangerous advice
b.) someone getting pissed at you for being a freaking moron
???

Do you even ride a bicycle? Or do you just lurk in the A&S forum waiting for chances to jump into a thread that no one really cares about you in? From looking at your post history I'm willing to bet it's the latter.
With friends like you, cyclist rights advocacy needs no enemies.

I ride from 3,000 to 6,000 miles per year, depending on the year.

[CrosseyedCrickt]

HH is right. Even when not at fault, you can prevent a lot of accidents by just paying attention. My guess is that if either the cyclists or the ped in the OP had been paying more attention, this accident would not have happened.

No, YOU are probably right in saying that alot of accidents can be avoided... how do we know that they aren't already? No one ever reports a "near accident" do they?
HelmetHeads position is that it is rare for only one person to be at fault. That in at least 6 out of 10 incidents both people are at fault. I wonder if anyone else buys this line of thinking? And where this line of thinking comes from.

[chipcom]

I'm just glad I'm not HH's publicist...talk about Mission Impossible! :eek: