Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Tactical Analysis Thread: Cycling Related Fatalities/Serious Injury Incidents

This thread is to discuss Cyclist fatalities/injury incidents and possible solutions to the issues.

Guidelines

No names. This is to protect the families from emotional trauma and avoid complicating any legal cases. No names means NO NAMES, period in this thread.
Location/date/time/known conditions
If a post is speculation, it MUST be identified as such
Respect and decorum at all times: Think rules of order. No insults or barbs.
Follow general Bike Forum Guidelines and policies
If an impasse is reached, agree to disagree and possibly revisit the issue later after all parties have had time to think.
If you do revisit an issue, link back or quote the specific post in this thread to avoid confusion


Follow these guidelines and this can be developed into a resource for the forums and cycling in general.

Link to article (http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2007/06/aloha_bicyclist_dies_after_bei.html)
permalink to same article. (http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2007/06/aloha_bicyclist_dies_after_bei.html)

Oregonlive search for all Aloha cyclist articles. (http://search.oregonlive.com/sp?aff=100&keywords=Aloha+cyclist)


Link to comments from rider who was there. (http://bikeportland.org/2007/06/09/fatal-crash-in-washington-county/#comment-416688)

Date: June 09, 2007
Time: "Just before noon"
Location: southbound Northwest Cornelius-Schefflin Road (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=NW+Cornelius-Schefflin+Road++and+NW+Long+Road,+hillsboro,+or+%28Cyclist+killed%29&sll=45.569352,-122.98233&sspn=0.225921,0.593262&ie=UTF8&ll=45.546995,-123.059578&spn=0.056503,0.148315&z=13&iwloc=addr&om=1) north of Cornelius in Oregon

Undisputed facts:
5 cyclists traveling southbound planning to turn left onto a sideroad at an upcoming T intersection where the only turn is left.
Motorist approaching from behind.
Motorist was encroaching into oncoming lane illegally crossing solid yellow in order to pass cyclists.
Cyclist drifted left into path of passing motorist as he was looking back.
Oregonian story: "[The cyclist], riding second in the single-file line, signaled for a left turn, drifting left as he prepared to turn. "
Rider Michael comment: " I was looking at his face and bike as the car hit him. "
It is generally considered acceptable to cross over double yellows in order to pass cyclists when there is no oncoming traffic even though in most states it is technically illegal. In some states, though not in Oregon, it is explicitly legal to do so.Speculation (based on reasonable assumptions)
From the google maps image it is obvious that the corner of the road and the side road is a field, and unless it was full of corn or some crop, and early June is still pretty early for that ("knee high by the 4th of July" is what is traditionally expected of corn) that blocked the sightlines from the road to the side road, the driver could see if the side road had any approaching traffic on it.
Driver was probably traveling at around 60 mph (88 feet per second)
Cyclists were probably traveling at around 15 mph (22 feet per second)
At 10 seconds prior to the crash, the cyclists, still over 200 feet from the intersection/point of impact, were probably still traveling near the fog line.
At 10 seconds prior to the crash, the motorist, about 650 feet behind the cyclists, had to decide whether to slow down or pass.
It is likely that at the time the motorist decided to pass she had no way of knowing the cyclists would be turning left onto the side road.
It is likely that the motorist could see that there was no traffic on the side road and no oncoming traffic, and, so, it probably appeared to be a perfectly safe and reasonable place to pass the cyclists to her, even if it meant crossing the double yellow some to pass with safe distance.
At 40-60 mph, when the cyclist suddenly signaled, looked back and drifted into her path, there was probably nothing she could do in time to avoid hitting him.Analysis:
Neither the motorist nor the cyclists were operating according to defensive driving principles. With the motorist this is obvious, not only was she in not being defensive, she was in blatant violation of several laws. For the cyclist, he apparently was riding near the fog line inviting close passing, and almost certainly drifted, swerved or moved in some way left without first verifying it to be clear and safe to do so.
The motorist was in technical violation of driving with a suspended license and crossing a double yellow, but this could just as easily have happened in a slightly different scenario where these factors did not apply. In particular, if her license was not suspended and they were planning on turning left into a driveway or roadside stand on the other side along a section of this road without a double yellow, but everything else happened exactly the same, it would be difficult to find fault with anything she did, but the crash would still have been the result. Furthermore, her behavior was arguably normal and certainly should not have been unexpected for a road like that.
Since another rider at the scene admitted to not even being aware of the passing vehicle until it hit the rider in front of him, it is reasonable to assume that the rider who was hit also was unaware of its presence, at least not until it was too late. This indicates a lack of paying attention to what was going on behind them considering they were preparing to turn left.Comments
Whenever I ride with other cyclists, no matter how "experienced" they are, I am almost always alarmed at how lackadaisacal they seem to be with left turns, and, in particular, how late they wait before begining the left turn process. I'm often all the way over to the left before they even look behind for the first time. Having said that, there is nothing necessarily wrong with waiting until the last few seconds/50 feet to initate the process, as long as you take a good look back and are willing to stop and wait for a gap if you don't have one. But it's also important to be able to look back to check things out without drifting in the process, which is also something many cyclists don't seem able to do. This tragic incident seems to be an example of all of that.

Edits:
6/16: stripe is yellow solid/dashed, not double yellow.
6/16: Added justification for why neither was defensive (analysis #1)

Uh, HH there is one little flaw in the analysis concerning the decision making process by the driver... I believe that the lead cyclist had started to execute a left turn... so therefore was already moving out and in the path of the motorist. Why would she then chose to move around the cyclists because as a group they were now spreading out?

Is it possible that she made a hasty decision and underestimated the speed of the cyclists and accelerated to try to "make the gap" before the next cycist moved out, at which time that cyclist also decided to move out. Perhaps she was motivated by the notion that she had to get ahead of the cyclists...

A situation like this is similar to two motorists trying to occupy the same lane and moving over at the same time from either side of an empty lane space... suddenly meeting in the middle... but the cyclist in this case does not have the speed to quickly react and pull away as motorists might do...

Uh, HH there is one little flaw in the analysis concerning the decision making process by the driver... I believe that the lead cyclist had started to execute a left turn... so therefore was already moving out and in the path of the motorist. Why would she then chose to move around the cyclists because as a group they were now spreading out?

Is it possible that she made a hasty decision and underestimated the speed of the cyclists and accelerated to try to "make the gap" before the next cycist moved out, at which time that cyclist also decided to move out. Perhaps she was motivated by the notion that she had to get ahead of the cyclists...

A situation like this is similar to two motorists trying to occupy the same lane and moving over at the same time from either side of an empty lane space... suddenly meeting in the middle... but the cyclist in this case does not have the speed to quickly react and pull away as motorists might do... Do you know if the first cyclist made the turn, and, how far the 2nd cyclist was behind him?

In any case, if she did gun it, they were turning, she was going straight. If there was no double yellow legal technicality in play here, the onus on yielding the ROW would be clearly on the cyclists. The fact that she was illegally passing muddies the legal waters, but in terms of general principles and best practices, the left turners should have looked back and made sure it was clear and safe to turn before proceeding.

Given the likely speeds involved, I'm fairly certain (speculation alert!) that she must have initiated and was committed to passing several seconds before they provided any clue as to their intention to turn left, and no sudden acceleration was required. I continue to believe that the 3rd cyclist's admission of a total lack of awareness of her even being behind them until she hit the cyclist in front of him speaks volumes about the level of attention (and lack thereof) these left-turners were placing to the situation behind them.

It's also entirely conceivable that the 2nd cyclist, who was the one who was hit, was several seconds behind the first cyclist, that the first cyclist made it safely across, and the driver assumed the other cyclists would yield to her until she passed them. How could she be held responsible to foresee or be blamed for the 2nd cyclist drifting into her path while he was looking back?

honestly serge, haven't we beaten this particular incident to death yet (no pun intended)?. No one agrees with you. Stop browbeating us.

Everyone else: please don't feed the troll!

honestly serge, haven't we beaten this particular incident to death yet (no pun intended)?. No one agrees with you. Stop browbeating us.

Everyone else: please don't feed the troll!
Randy, there were quite a few folks who expressed agreement with my analysis in the thread that got deleted, but they were easy to miss in the deluge of posts expressing disagreement with me, but without explanation, much like the post you just made here. Anyway, I'm not going to respond to any more posts in this thread, except to link to this post/explanation, that are not addressing the facts about the incident in question, and analysis and speculation that arises therefrom.

HH has duely labeled his work as speculation, and left out an important, perhaps overriding fact. The fact was the rainy weather, with low-hanging clouds. One other fact is that what he sees in two-dimensional in Google Maps. This area is not level.

Today, I drove this area, and was surprised at how little Long Road is. While I could not stop the car due to Friday evening traffic, I did not see any identifying wreckage at the area. I did see some skid marks just before the intersection (driving north to south), but could not relate them necessarily to the accident, as there were other skid marks on the roadway just beyond the intersection.

For those of you who are following HH's speculation, remember it is just that. He does not have all the fact (although he has more than he had two days ago, and still forgot about the weather). These two statements, presented as fact, are from a newspaper. While the reporter may have done his best, no statement from a newspaper is considered completely reliable:

Cyclist drifted left into path of passing motorist as he was looking back.
Oregonian story: "[The cyclist], riding second in the single-file line, signaled for a left turn, drifting left as he prepared to turn. "
Rider Michael comment: " I was looking at his face and bike as the car hit him. "
It is generally considered acceptable to cross over double yellows in order to pass cyclists when there is no oncoming traffic even though in most states it is technically illegal. In some states, though not in Oregon, it is explicitly legal to do so.
Accident investigators do not rely much on either newspaper articles, or second-hand information. Eye witness statements, taken within 24 hours of the event, are best. Then there are photographs taken just after the event, physical evidence, time lines, etc., that can be used to re-construct what actually happened. But accident investigators will never take a short article in a newspaper and make an absolute determination as to what happened from that. It is very easy to do "armchair investigations," and present them as fact, which is what HH did prior to the deletion of that thread. Here, at least, he is presenting it as his speculation, which is better. It is most likely wrong, however. HH states in his "analysys" above:

Neither the motorist nor the cyclists were operating according to defensive driving principles.
That is speculation on his part concerning the cyclist. The Washington County Sheriff's Department has confirmed it with the driver, through the citations issued.

The motorist was in technical violation of driving with a suspended license and crossing a double yellow, but this could just as easily have happened in a slightly different scenario where these factors did not apply. In particular, if her license was not suspended and they were planning on turning left into a driveway or roadside stand on the other side along a section of this road without a double yellow, but everything else happened exactly the same, it would be difficult to find fault with anything she did, but the crash would still have been the result. Furthermore, her behavior was arguably normal and certainly should not have been unexpected for a road like that.
The motorist was in actual, real violation of Oregon statute, and was cited for it. Her behavior is not normal, unless it is open season on bicyclists. They were signaling a turn, for Pete's sake! She had the responsibility to operate her vehicle in a safe manner according to the rules of the road. Actually, her responsibility was to not be driving at all, as her license was suspended. To excuse her in any way is not reasonable.

By the way, the line is not double solid. It is solid on the south-bound side, and dashed on the center, for about two-hundred yards in front of that intersection. Again, when I said it looked like a solid double, that was speculation and noted as such from the aerial shot from Google. Being on the ground today, I was able to see what it did look like.

Since another rider at the scene admitted to not even being aware of the passing vehicle until it hit the rider in front of him, it is reasonable to assume that the rider who was hit also was unaware of its presence, at least not until it was too late. This indicates a lack of paying attention to what was going on behind them considering they were preparing to turn left.
It is not "reasonable" to assume anything until all the facts are known of the situation. There is a breakdown to the word "assume" which goes something like this ("ass"_"u"_"me"). This is what is happening here, again, after the other thread has been deleted.

I hope to look more thoroughly at that intersection on Sunday, and may be able to provide some photos.

John

Reports these supposedly *rare* hit-from-behind accidents just keep coming. Of the 4 fatal accidents I have heard of in Ontario this year, 3 have been of this type.

Reports these supposedly *rare* hit-from-behind accidents just keep coming. Of the 4 fatal accidents I have heard of in Ontario this year, 3 have been of this type.

I keep seeing reports of cyclists getting hit from behind while riding completely out of the way of motorists' normal paths. Seems the hit from behind when actually in a motorist's intended path is still very rare.

I keep seeing reports of cyclists getting hit from behind while riding completely out of the way of motorists' normal paths. Seems the hit from behind when actually in a motorist's intended path is still very rare.

So you are suggesting that on a 55MPH road, we should remain right in the motorists' path for complete safety.

So you are suggesting that on a 55MPH road, we should remain right in the motorists' path for complete safety.

I don't think we really need to get into this any more than has already been discussed but... I believe it's useful to be in the motorist's path to get their attention just in case you happen to need it, although that's a more minor reason in comparison to the other benefits of riding in the traffic lane. Once you have their attention, if there's room to make passing you easier, it would be the courteous thing to use that space.

I don't think we really need to get into this any more than has already been discussed but... I believe it's useful to be in the motorist's path to get their attention just in case you happen to need it, although that's a more minor reason in comparison to the other benefits of riding in the traffic lane. Once you have their attention, if there's room to make passing you easier, it would be the courteous thing to use that space.

I am sorry, I don't understand "in case you happen to need it."

That implies that I may only rarely need a motorists' attention... yet you earlier implied that if I don't have a motorists' attention, I am at risk of an overtaking accident.

I am confused, do I need a motorists attention or are there alternatives such as riding completely out of the way of motorists' normal paths?

I am sorry, I don't understand "in case you happen to need it."

That implies that I may only rarely need a motorists' attention... yet you earlier implied that if I don't have a motorists' attention, I am at risk of an overtaking accident.

I am confused, do I need a motorists attention or are there alternatives such as riding completely out of the way of motorists' normal paths?

As should be obvious by the cyclist death threads posted here where a cyclist was completely out of the way of a motorist and was still drifted into due to some distraction (disregarding the motorist who crosses into oncoming traffic lanes and takes out a cyclist), simply beng out of the way yet still near the traffic lanes is no guarantee of safety. Neither is riding in such a manner as to get the motorists' attention but it does seem to me that it would reduce the risk that they would drift into you because they were only paying attention to what was directly in front of them. Unless they were not paying attention to what was in front of them (and thus probably drifting around on the road), there is little reason that they should hit you. I'll admit that being in the motorists path exposes you to such hazards as excessive speed with poor visibility (curves, hill crests, fog, bright sun, etc.) but at least you are now relying on both the motorist's attention and your own and not simply the motorist's attention. If visibility were so bad that there was no way a motorist could not detect you in time to slow to your speed or you could not detect them in time to move out of the way, then this technique is not very useful but I think those situations are very rare. I've yet to encounter one even in some pretty bad snow storms.

My statement "in case you happen to need it" is referring to cycling on a stretch of road with no intersections where the vast majority of the time you could be perfectly safe just staying out of the way and not worrying at all about having a motorist's attention as nothing they would normally do would affect you. Where there are intersections, there are so many more reasons to want a motorist's attention that drifting isn't even worth discussing.

I keep seeing reports of cyclists getting hit from behind while riding completely out of the way of motorists' normal paths. Seems the hit from behind when actually in a motorist's intended path is still very rare.

I think we've all heard this song before.

Suffice to say it does not seem that way to me.

I think we've all heard this song before.

Suffice to say it does not seem that way to me.

Can you link to the accident reports from Ontario? I'm assuming these support your claim.

Thanks John, I made a couple of minor updates in my post above.

I don't know why you think I'm any more clear about what is fact and what is speculation now than I was in the deleted thread. I thought it was quite clear there too. Oh well, that's behind us now.



It is not "reasonable" to assume anything until all the facts are known of the situation.

I'm not an accident investigator and my purpose here is not to determine what actually happened. That would be entirely inappropriate (not to mention impossible).

My purpose, as it always is on this forum with respect to these incidents, is to speculate about what is likely to have happened, to assume that IS what happened, and discuss what, if anything, the cyclist could or should have done to avoid the crash, assuming those speculations are facts. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand.



The motorist was in actual, real violation of Oregon statute, and was cited for it. Her behavior is not normal, unless it is open season on bicyclists. They were signaling a turn, for Pete's sake! She had the responsibility to operate her vehicle in a safe manner according to the rules of the road. Actually, her responsibility was to not be driving at all, as her license was suspended. To excuse her in any way is not reasonable.

Just because her behavior was in actual, real violation of Oregon statute, and she was cited for it, does not mean that behavior was not normal. Nor does accepting that that behavior is normal mean it is open season on bicyclists. That's ridiculous.

By the way, when I say her behavior is normal, I mean "usual, typical, expected".

Whether you like it or not, all of the following is usual, typical and expected (or at least it should be by the experienced cyclist):


Motorists that speed, even when it's raining (even police do this).
Motorists that are invited to pass closely on narrow rural roads where cyclists are riding near or on the fog line (e.g, I've been close passed by police officers before I knew better than to ride near the road edge).
Motorists (even police) that cross a solid yellow in order to pass cyclists.


That list of behavior is usual, typical and most certainly should be expected. Illegal though it is, it is normal. If you don't expect it, and ride accordingly, then you should not be riding your bike on roads.

Reports these supposedly *rare* hit-from-behind accidents just keep coming. Of the 4 fatal accidents I have heard of in Ontario this year, 3 have been of this type.Some time ago, I expressed my safety reservations about cycling in traffic with children in a trailer. There were tons of responses from parents who pull their children in trailers, claiming that these types of accidents are extremely rare/never happen. Sounds like wishful thinking to me.

In the over-all universe of cycling accidents, these rear-enders are a small percentage of the overall total. As we are now seeing, that doesn't mean that they "never happen."

Blue Order, did anyone ever say any particular type of crash never happens? Who? Where?

I don't think this thread will work if it is used as an a forum to air old arguments. It would probably be beneficial if we simply post analysis and counter analysis here and move to another topic to argue the merits of the analysis.

Failing to do this will make the thread useless as an opportunity to learn from the previous accidents.

I don't think this thread will work if it is used as an a forum to air old arguments. It would probably be beneficial if we simply post analysis and counter analysis here and move to another topic to argue the merits of the analysis.

Failing to do this will make the thread useless as an opportunity to learn from the previous accidents.
That's kind of the intent, yes......

I'd suggest the format of Argument/Counterargument and conclusions. If you revisit the analysis later, please include the original post number or something so we all have something to easily reference back to, or link to the individual post you are referring to. This thread, to work is going to really require debate techniques and clear presentation to achieve the desired result.

Can you link to the accident reports from Ontario? I'm assuming these support your claim.

Why?

So we can re-enact this (http://bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=279174&page=9)inane discussion?

In case you don't want to bother re-reading it I will recap:

I post examples from media outlets of bikes hit from behind, I state examples of accidents I've personally seen where cars were hit from behind, I give times I was nearly hit from behind on my bike and list the times I've been actually hit from behind in my car.

You say there is not enough information in the media reports to conclude anything and discard all my personal experience as exaggerated and anecdotal, whereas you regard media pieces that support your claim as reliable journalism and all your own observations as irrefutable.

Hence, you stick to a claim that goes well beyond counterintuitive and into the realm of, IMO, delusional. Either way it reaffirms that the way you currently ride is safest and every other method is riskier.

Rinse and repeat.

Thanks John, I made a couple of minor updates in my post above.

I don't know why you think I'm any more clear about what is fact and what is speculation now than I was in the deleted thread. I thought it was quite clear there too. Oh well, that's behind us now.


I'm not an accident investigator and my purpose here is not to determine what actually happened. That would be entirely inappropriate (not to mention impossible).

My purpose, as it always is on this forum with respect to these incidents, is to speculate about what is likely to have happened, to assume that IS what happened, and discuss what, if anything, the cyclist could or should have done to avoid the crash, assuming those speculations are facts. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand.


Just because her behavior was in actual, real violation of Oregon statute, and she was cited for it, does not mean that behavior was not normal. Nor does accepting that that behavior is normal mean it is open season on bicyclists. That's ridiculous.

By the way, when I say her behavior is normal, I mean "usual, typical, expected".

Whether you like it or not, all of the following is usual, typical and expected (or at least it should be by the experienced cyclist):


Motorists that speed, even when it's raining (even police do this).
Motorists that are invited to pass closely on narrow rural roads where cyclists are riding near or on the fog line (e.g, I've been close passed by police officers before I knew better than to ride near the road edge).
Motorists (even police) that cross a solid yellow in order to pass cyclists.


That list of behavior is usual, typical and most certainly should be expected. Illegal though it is, it is normal. If you don't expect it, and ride accordingly, then you should not be riding your bike on roads.
Maybe it is so hard to understand because, as a trained accident investigator, we never specucate about anything. We also do not assume anything, for the reason (the breakout of that word) stated above. Once you do that, you start going down a road that may be leading in the wrong direction. By the way, this is why the NTSB takes so long returning findings on an accident--they will not speculate at all. Every finding must be nailed down by factual evidence. Without that, the speculation could lead in the wrong direction, and produce justifications to causes which do not exist.

It is apparent that you are interested in only the things that a cyclist can do, and not what effect the cyclist might have on the system to change behaviors of drivers. Your working theory says that all accidents are preventable by the cyclist, and mine says that is not true. This is the major disagreement that we have.

Today, I rode that road, and stopped to take some photos (they are film, so they still need to be developed). I did note that the drivers were driving at around 35-45 mph, and not faster today. If this woman was driving as fast as the eyewitnesses say, then what I'm going to say next is not relavant. At 35-45 mph, looking back traffic could be seen about 22-25 seconds out (~500 yards). After that, the road jogs left (looking north) and disappears as it descends a slight hill. The roadway was 11 feet wide from centerline to fog line. There was evidence of the car being in the ditch beyond the intersection. There was no evidence of where exactly the accident occurred, or whether the skid marks I saw had any relavance to the accident (they were not long). Weather conditions today were overcast clouds, with a ceiling greater than 1000 feet. The weather conditions at the time of the accident may have been worse.

John

To Tom, Donna and the rest of the moderators:

this topic should so NOT be a 'sticky'.

To Tom, Donna and the rest of the moderators:

this topic should so NOT be a 'sticky'.
Bek, this was created to give a venue for this type of analysis to keep it out of threads where family of the cyclists could search and accidentally find it. Hence the requirement for never mentioning the names of the cyclists here.

Think about it....there have been several times where a family member has found the threads about their family member through a Google search, just here on BF. This way, since it's a foregone conclusion that there WILL be analysis, it's a normal human tendency, it can be done without traumatizing someone..... hopefully.

Maybe it is so hard to understand because, as a trained accident investigator, we never specucate about anything. We also do not assume anything, for the reason (the breakout of that word) stated above. Once you do that, you start going down a road that may be leading in the wrong direction. You say "wrong direction". In order for a direction to be wrong, you must have a destination in mind, and the direction in question must not take you there. If your destination is "determine what actually happened", then certainly speculation and assumptions may take you in the "wrong direction". As I said earlier, "determine what actually happened" is not an appropriate or relevant topic for this forum. What is appropriate is to talk about what is more or less likely to have happened, and discuss how a cyclist might avoid such a crash IF those things are what happened.


It is apparent that you are interested in only the things that a cyclist can do, and not what effect the cyclist might have on the system to change behaviors of drivers. Oh, really? I'm not interested in what effect the cyclist might have on the system to change behaviors of drivers? Where have you been? Of course I'm interested in that. It's just that you don't accept that cycling vehicularly, and advocating vehicular cycling, is the most effective means cyclists have to change behaviors of drivers. I also don't think that efforts to pass laws such as 3' minimum passing distance, or the current proposed law in Oregon, will have much if any positive effects with respect to how motorists treat cyclists, and are likely to do the opposite. Same with onstreet segregated bicycle facilities.


Your working theory says that all accidents are preventable by the cyclist, and mine says that is not true. This is the major disagreement that we have. Are you capable of not exaggerating my position when restating it? If you could, it would go a long way towards us being able to have a rational discourse.

Your statement is akin to accusing MADD of have a working theory "that all accidents are preventable if all drivers are sober", or Planned Parenthood of having a working theory "that all pregnancies are preventable with rubbers". It's disingenuous strawman creation. Never have I claimed that all accidents are preventable by the cyclist. So that most certainly is not the major disagreement that we have. In fact, we don't disagree about that at all, since we both recognize that some crashes like (Name deleted, HH, no names mentioned in this thread please, due to the previously mentioned concern for family members finding the analysis thread via Google-T.S) death, or the woman pulling the kid trailer) are certainly not preventable by the cyclist.

...Are you capable of not exaggerating my position when restating it? If you could, it would go a long way towards us being able to have a rational discourse.

Your statement is akin to accusing MADD of have a working theory "that all accidents are preventable if all drivers are sober", or Planned Parenthood of having a working theory "that all pregnancies are preventable with rubbers". It's disingenuous strawman creation. Never have I claimed that all accidents are preventable by the cyclist. So that most certainly is not the major disagreement that we have. In fact, we don't disagree about that at all, since we both recognize that some crashes like (Name deleted, HH, no names mentioned in this thread please, due to the previously mentioned concern for family members finding the analysis thread via Google-T.S) death, or the woman pulling the kid trailer) are certainly not preventable by the cyclist.
HH,

What your stated position is and how you act or react to incidents/accidents are apparently two different things. I was talking about my experiences with you on the accidents that we had discussed. By the way, your statement that this is "akin to accusing MADD of making a working theory..." is not the same, as you have demonstrated in the accidents we have discussed here that the driver is not at fault, at least initially, in a cycling accident.

When I say "the system," I'm talking about the legal and structural system, not on how you perceive your individual behavior as affecting the drivers around you. I'm talking about changing laws so that when someone dies, the fine is not less than $200 and the person walks away (as can be currently the case in Oregon). You have shown, to my knowledge, no interest in this, and indeed have written blogs stating that we should continue to concentrate on cyclist behavior. I think you may have written another one recently, although I don't know that for a fact; that person just sounds like you.

John

PS--Please leave names off in this thread.

HH has a double standard on following the forum rules; he only thinks it's important for everyone else to follow the rules, but not him.

For the record, the only name I mentioned was a well-known (in the cycling community) public name (first name Ken, initials K. K.) of someone with his own website (http://kenkifer.com/), and I said nothing about him or his collision except to say that it is a rare example of the type of collision where there really was nothing the cyclist could have done to avoid it. Thinking that his family stumbling onto that comment, as opposed to the countless others all over the internet that say the same thing, would be some kind of significant event is absurd.

That the "no names" rule in the OP would or should apply to a brief mention of KK's collision, and enforcing it accordingly, is a classic example of tossing reason aside for the sake of following rules literally.
Other than equal application of the intent of the standards of the thread, HH. No names means NO NAMES.....period. Whether they are already published before means nothing in the context of this thread. For this concept to work, this must be practiced in all posts here. That way, there is no precedent for other ways of slipping in a name. Please respect the guidelines set forth in the initial posting, and I'm also sure everyone else will as well. Thank you for your cooperation in this.

Other than equal application of the intent of the standards of the thread, HH. No names means NO NAMES.....period. Whether they are already published before means nothing in the context of this thread. For this concept to work, this must be practiced in all posts here. That way, there is no precedent for other ways of slipping in a name. Please respect the guidelines set forth in the initial posting, and I'm also sure everyone else will as well. Thank you for your cooperation in this. Tom, with all due respect the OP clearly states: "Please don't include name of cyclists involved, ..." Involved in what? The title of this thread is "Tactical Analysis Thread: Cycling Related Fatalities/Serious Injury Incidents". The only reasonable interpretion of "cyclists involved" is "cyclists involved in the 'Cycling Related Fatalities/Serious Injury Incidents' that are analyzed in this thread". It does not say, or mean, "NO NAMES.... period". If that's what you want it to mean (and why would you?), then say that in the OP.

The reason for the "don't include names of cyclists involved" rule is laudable: to protect the emotions of the family members of those victims whose crashes are speculated and analyzed here. I did not include the names of any cyclists involved in any of the crashes analyzed in this thread. Unless you start reinterpreting the rules to mean something else, like "NO NAMES.....period", no rules were violated here, not in spirit, not literally, not in any way, and I resent the implication to the contrary. But it's par for the course around here. I just expect better from you.

HH, the thread is a work in progress, as I've mentioned earlier in the thread. I edited the original post to more clearly reflect the intent.

Please interpret it to mean no names means no names. This is to provide both anonymity for the cyclist and/or family as well as avoid any specifically citable speculation that could muddy up any legal issues for the aforesaid families. Fair enough?
Tom, with all due respect the OP clearly states: "Please don't include name of cyclists involved, ..." Involved in what? The title of this thread is "Tactical Analysis Thread: Cycling Related Fatalities/Serious Injury Incidents". The only reasonable interpretion of "cyclists involved" is "cyclists involved in the 'Cycling Related Fatalities/Serious Injury Incidents' that are analyzed in this thread". It does not say, or mean, "NO NAMES.... period". If that's what you want it to mean (and why would you?), then say that in the OP.

The reason for the "don't include names of cyclists involved" rule is laudable: to protect the emotions of the family members of those victims whose crashes are speculated and analyzed here. I did not include the names of any cyclists involved in any of the crashes analyzed in this thread. Unless you start reinterpreting the rules to mean something else, like "NO NAMES.....period", no rules were violated here, not in spirit, not literally, not in any way, and I resent the implication to the contrary. But it's par for the course around here. I just expect better from you.

HH, the thread is a work in progress, as I've mentioned earlier in the thread. I edited the original post to more clearly reflect the intent.

Please interpret it to mean no names means no names. This is to provide both anonymity for the cyclist and/or family as well as avoid any specifically citable speculation that could muddy up any legal issues for the aforesaid families. Fair enough? Now it is.

Thanks for taking the time and making the effort to clear this up. I will happily oblige.

This story shows you that dogs being walked on bike trails are a deadly menace:

http://www.gazetteextra.com/bicycledeath062107.asp

Associated Press

APPLETON, Wis. - A retired college professor died when his bicycle crashed on a trail Wednesday, authorities said.

Name Deleted, 75, who taught French at Lawrence University for 32 years before retiring in 1996, was pronounced dead at St. Elizabeth Hospital about an hour after the accident.

Ruth Wulgaert, Outagamie County coroner, said subject (Name deleted) died of blunt force head trauma after he stopped his bicycle suddenly and crashed.

She said subject was riding down a hill when he approached a man walking a dog on the right side of the path.

"We dont know if at the last minute he saw the dog and braked quick and went head over heels or what," Wulgaert said.

Subject wore a helmet but landed on the left side of his face, she said.

Sounds more like improper brake use was the menace. The dog and owner were on the right side of the path... where they probably should be. The cyclist "braked quick" and probably did not shift his weight for the sudden stop, and went over the bars. A Road 1 class would have shown that cyclist how to stop and how to use the brakes for the most effective quick stop. (of course there are some here on BF that do not believe cyclists need any education)

A co-worker did that "quick stop and over the bars trick" about a year ago coming down a steep hill... broke her collerbone and shattered her cheek. Not a dog in sight.

Moderator note: Deleted name references to comply with the new thread-Tom Stormcrowe

Sounds more like improper brake use was the menace. The dog and owner were on the right side of the path... where they probably should be. The cyclist "braked quick" and probably did not shift his weight for the sudden stop, and went over the bars. A Road 1 class would have shown that cyclist how to stop and how to use the brakes for the most effective quick stop. (of course there are some here on BF that do not believe cyclists need any education)
.

The man was 75 years old, I think he probably had enough experience cycling to know how to use the brakes.
The front brake, if applied to hard, can flip any cyclist "arse over teakettle".

This story shows you that dogs being walked on bike trails are a deadly menace:

Not to be argumentative, but nowhere in the story does it state the dog was the cause of the accident.


"We dont know if at the last minute he saw the dog and braked quick and went head over heels or what,"

Pretty broad. Maybe he was going to fast? Hit a bump at the most inopportune time and lost control? Had the other gentleman been walking with his son, would your statement have been "kids walked on bike trails"

Then again, the article stated "trails".

This story shows you that dogs being walked on bike trails are a deadly menace:

http://www.gazetteextra.com/bicycledeath062107.asp

Associated Press

APPLETON, Wis. - A retired college professor died when his bicycle crashed on a trail Wednesday, authorities said.

Name Deleted, 75, who taught French at Lawrence University for 32 years before retiring in 1996, was pronounced dead at St. Elizabeth Hospital about an hour after the accident.

Ruth Wulgaert, Outagamie County coroner, said subject (Name deleted) died of blunt force head trauma after he stopped his bicycle suddenly and crashed.

She said Reed was riding down a hill when he approached a man walking a dog on the right side of the path.

"We dont know if at the last minute he saw the dog and braked quick and went head over heels or what," Wulgaert said.

Subject wore a helmet but landed on the left side of his face, she said.[/QOTE]Sounds more like improper brake use was the menace. The dog and owner were on the right side of the path... where they probably should be. The cyclist "braked quick" and probably did not shift his weight for the sudden stop, and went over the bars. A Road 1 class would have shown that cyclist how to stop and how to use the brakes for the most effective quick stop. (of course there are some here on BF that do not believe cyclists need any education)

A co-worker did that "quick stop and over the bars trick" about a year ago coming down a steep hill... broke her collerbone and shattered her cheek. Not a dog in sight.

Moderator note: Deleted name references to comply with the new thread-Tom Stormcrowe

You missed an instance of the involved person's name - I've highlighted it in bold for you. Also Tom has clarified the original guide lines for this type of thread and the restriction on names is no longer the involved person's name - it is ANY names period. It is safe to assume this also means place names so your post should really have read:
This story shows you that dogs being walked on bike trails are a deadly menace:

http://www.gazetteextra.com/bicycledeath062107.asp

Associated Press

Censored, Censored. - A retired college professor died when his bicycle crashed on a trail Wednesday, authorities said.

Censored, 75, who taught French at Censored University for 32 years before retiring in 1996, was pronounced dead at St. Censored Hospital about an hour after the accident.

Censored, Censored County coroner, said Censored died of blunt force head trauma after he stopped his bicycle suddenly and crashed.

She said Censored was riding down a hill when he approached a man walking a dog on the right side of the path.

"We dont know if at the last minute he saw the dog and braked quick and went head over heels or what," Censored said.

Censored wore a helmet but landed on the left side of his face, she said.Now all we have to address is the issue of Google links and the fact that if Google has a link to this thread or this thread has links to the outside world, then (oops) all this censorship is for naught.

The cyclist "braked quick" and probably did not shift his weight for the sudden stop, and went over the bars. A Road 1 class would have shown that cyclist how to stop and how to use the brakes for the most effective quick stop. (of course there are some here on BF that do not believe cyclists need any education)
Are you so sure of the education program that you promote that you have no doubt that every person exposed to such eduction practices it all times under all conditions and reacts in the "approved" manner regardless of the circumstances?

Selling your favorite eduction shtick as the all purpose solution at every ghoulish opportunity without any facts gets mighty tiresome; HH is giving it a rest; why don't you too?

Are you so sure of the education program that you promote that you have no doubt that every person exposed to such eduction practices it all times under all conditions and reacts in the "approved" manner regardless of the circumstances?

Selling your favorite eduction shtick as the all purpose solution at every ghoulish opportunity without any facts gets mighty tiresome; HH is giving it a rest; why don't you too?

Hey, I am not an educator, I don't make any money educating and I have no connection to any education agencies or anything else... I only push it as I saw how some real newbies improved. And BTW I have no plans to become an educator.

I took the classes and frankly I learned very little myself... I could have easily taught the classes. But I did see how the classes improved others... so in all honesty, I really can recommend them.

As for the braking bit... there is a good chance the professor may have learned how to best stop his bike while practicing high speed stops under supervision. Then again he might have gone over the handlebars in class... and not learned a thing.

But the bottom line is I saw improvement in others; they benefited, so I know the classes have value.

The school of hard knocks will teach the same lessons... it is up to the student to determine which they wish to pursue.

As an aside... I have noticed that brakes on newer bikes are far far better than on older bikes... that improvement alone may have been enough for the result... the prof may have learned this on his own simply by practicing a few panic stops.

Experience will teach that too. Unfortunately no lessons helped in time for this situation.

JMHO... I think HH thinks a lot more of the classes than I do... for any long expericed rider/commuter, I doubt the classes will offer anything.

The man was 75 years old, I think he probably had enough experience cycling to know how to use the brakes.
The front brake, if applied to hard, can flip any cyclist "arse over teakettle".

I rather doubt that... that he had the experience that is. Otherwise he would have known not to mash down on the front brakes without shifting his weight.

I suspect he did have experience on bikes, and perhaps bought a newer one... with far better brakes than he ever had, and he did not subsequently really put it to a hard braking test.

All pure speculation on my part, mind you.

I think I have to go with ILTB here. It's one thing to know your equipment inside out and know all your braking and balance points. It's another to suggest that this knowledge will prevent you from ever dumping the bike over forwards.

I've practiced stoppies and endos for years, and had a spectacular and largely unintentional 25mph-to-zero nose-wheelie on my road bike the other month when a box truck made a quick lane change. But given the right combination of inopportune circumstances, there's a pretty good chance I could still go over the bars.

Less likely perhaps, at best.

I cannot say that I know the area, but among the rules the motorist passing must obey are the requirement to pass safely, signal to the people being passed prior to passing, not to pass within 100 feet of an intersection (including bicycles), and that speed must be reasonable for conditions (that include road surface, weather, and traffic (including bicycles). It is also illegal to pass someone who is about to turn left if they are signalling.

A person who is under suspension has probably been driving badly, most likely for a long period of time. While there are some administrative reasons for suspension such as dropping out of high school for a juvenile, most reasons are serious violations and multiple violations. To me with my experience investigating and reconstructing traffic crashes, a person under suspension is usually exhibiting a pattern of bad driving.

All this is not to say that the bicyclists may not have made some errors. I would have to see the scene, take measurements, see the reports and vehicles to get a better idea. We as cyclists always have to remember that nearly everything out there can kill us and ride accordingly. One of my partners once investigated a head on bicycle to bicycle crash on a little bitty road in which BOTH cyclists were killed (believed to be playing chicken).

In 30 years I never handled a fatal bike crash. My friends had a few, and there was no real pattern. I've cycled all over the eastern USA, and I have had several close calls, including a semi that touched my pack as I labored up a hill in Florida tipping me off the road. (Semis have come closer to me than any other type of vehicle, and I try to stay off the roads they use heavily in my older age. Two acquaintences were killed after riding Ohio to Washington and were within 300 miles of returning home when struck from behind by a semi in Indiana.)

I've learned to enjoy bike paths too, but when I approach anyone walking a dog, anyone walking with their back to me, and especially any children, I slow and expect them to dart in front of me. (One did it today.) Between bad drivers and drivers who hate us being "in (their) way", there is a lot to be said about bike paths. Yesterday I was 18 inches off the (wide) road and moving right along in extremely light traffic when a passenger hit me with a bottle of Gator Ade from a car that overtook me. I wasn't in his way. I didn't slow him down. I was wearing safety green. To him I just represented a target, and fortunately the bottle was plastic and not glass. Dodging a few dogs on the bike path doesn't seem so bad any more. A shame about the older guy going over his handlebars. At least it wasn't clogged arteries.

This thread is to discuss Cyclist fatalities/injury incidents and possible solutions to the issues.

Guidelines

No names. This is to protect the families from emotional trauma and avoid complicating any legal cases. No names means NO NAMES, period in this thread.
Location/date/time/known conditions
If a post is speculation, it MUST be identified as such
Respect and decorum at all times: Think rules of order. No insults or barbs.
Follow general Bike Forum Guidelines and policies
If an impasse is reached, agree to disagree and possibly revisit the issue later after all parties have had time to think.
If you do revisit an issue, link back or quote the specific post in this thread to avoid confusion


Follow these guidelines and this can be developed into a resource for the forums and cycling in general.
Good idea, but I'll break you're rules. ("No names.")

The only really serious "accident" I had on my bike was when a pedestrian intentionally knocked me off my bike. Sent me to ER. The morphine did it's job.

I'll never put myself in that position again.

Motorists have never hurt me. Ever.

Good idea, but I'll break you're rules. ("No names.")

The only really serious "accident" I had on my bike was when a pedestrian intentionally knocked me off my bike. Sent me to ER. The morphine did it's job.

I'll never put myself in that position again.

Motorists have never hurt me. Ever.
I'll rule it an exception if you want to name your OWN name!:p No worries!:D

Sounds more like improper brake use was the menace. The dog and owner were on the right side of the path... where they probably should be. The cyclist "braked quick" and probably did not shift his weight for the sudden stop, and went over the bars. A Road 1 class would have shown that cyclist how to stop and how to use the brakes for the most effective quick stop. (of course there are some here on BF that do not believe cyclists need any education)

A co-worker did that "quick stop and over the bars trick" about a year ago coming down a steep hill... broke her collerbone and shattered her cheek. Not a dog in sight.

Moderator note: Deleted name references to comply with the new thread-Tom Stormcrowe

Or the dog walker had a 30 foot leash ran out across the trail like a trip line. I hit about 6 of those leashes over the years. Choked one dog close to death and all but that one broke when it got in my breaks and wheel and fork area.

Park rules here limit leashes to no longer than 6 foot with 3 and 4 foot suggested. Go above 6 foot and your leash will get taken by rangers and you get a nice escort out of the park.

So you are suggesting that on a 55MPH road, we should remain right in the motorists' path for complete safety.

There is no such thing as 'complete safety' on a road. But for optimal safety, of course it's safer to be in the motorist's path, where he can best see you. Your unspoken assumption here seems to be that being out of the path of a fast motorist is safest. It might seem safe, but as with many cycling issues, what seems safe is misleading.

There is no such thing as 'complete safety' on a road. But for optimal safety, of course it's safer to be in the motorist's path, where he can best see you. Your unspoken assumption here seems to be that being out of the path of a fast motorist is safest. It might seem safe, but as with many cycling issues, what seems safe is misleading.

So, where would you ride on a high speed road with bad sight lines and a nice wide smooth clean shoulder? For me, there's not the hint of a question. I'm on the shoulder riding fully aware that my far right position poses extra risk at all intersections.

There is no such thing as 'complete safety' on a road. But for optimal safety, of course it's safer to be in the motorist's path, where he can best see you. Your unspoken assumption here seems to be that being out of the path of a fast motorist is safest. It might seem safe, but as with many cycling issues, what seems safe is misleading.

Over-generalizations don't contribute to safety. The simple laws of physics dictate that being in the direct path of an object that is 4 times your size, 20 times your weight, traveling at twice (or more) your speed, is less safe than being out of its direct path. Yes, there are situational variables that may make one more or less safe than the other.

Over-generalizations don't contribute to safety. The simple laws of physics dictate that being in the direct path of an object that is 4 times your size, 20 times your weight, traveling at twice (or more) your speed, is less safe than being out of its direct path. Yes, there are situational variables that may make one more or less safe than the other.

And in this case, a huge situational variable is in play: the unwillingness of the driver of the big heavy object to crash into you.

So, where would you ride on a high speed road with bad sight lines and a nice wide smooth clean shoulder? For me, there's not the hint of a question. I'm on the shoulder riding fully aware that my far right position poses extra risk at all intersections.

Making up fictitious roads with impossibly poor visibility hardly makes a convincing argument. Only a complete moron or psychopath would build such a road, and I certainly wouldn't ride on it - even on the shoulder, unless I had a death wish.

And in this case, a huge situational variable is in play: the unwillingness of the driver of the big heavy object to crash into you.

People make mistakes. Like texting, picking up things they dropped, seeing-without-noticing, or falling asleep. That's generally why and how the really bad accidents happen. And in most of these cases, it's a really good idea NOT being in the lane.

Take the shoulder, if it's of any use at all.


Edit: And there's one more reason for not taking the lane on high speed, heavy traffic roads: People tend to tailgate, and if one driver sees you a little late, and swerves to avoid hitting you, the one behind him may not be able to react in time.

People make mistakes. Like texting, picking up things they dropped, seeing-without-noticing, or falling asleep. That's generally why and how the really bad accidents happen. And in most of these cases, it's a really good idea NOT being in the lane.

Rubbish. Yes, people make mistakes. But they don't make deadly mistakes very often, and they're more likely to make a mistake if they don't see us, and when we're out of the lane, we're less visible. I've been cycling in the road for 40 years and I've yet to be knocked off my bike while cycling in the road. Such is the usual experience of integrated cyclists. There's a reason gutter and bike lane cyclists have so many close calls and injuries, and it has everything to do with their failure to cycle visibly.


Take the shoulder, if it's of any use at all.

What 'shoulder'? One would think, from your response, that shoulders were ubiquitous. They are not. Besides, the shoulder is not a safe place to cycle. Studies show that using it results in a minimum two-fold increase in turning collisions. If you want to be injured, by all means use the shoulder. I prefer to stick to the main travel lane, where I'm safer.

And in what way are you qualified to offer such advice to other cyclists? Are you a cycling instructor? Have you even taken a cycling safety course? Have you even done an in-depth review of cycling collision studies? Or are you just talking out of your arse? These are rhetorical questions by the way: your stated geographical location, your attitude and your opinion already tell me that you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

By the way, I have taken a cycling instructor course, and I've taken many cycling safety courses. I've also studied all the research I can find relating to cycling safety. The vast majority of the research shows that your opinions and your advice are wrong and dangerous.

For example, here are two studies from Denmark that show that removing cyclists from the roadway is not quite as safe as 'bicycle advocates' seem to think:

2007 Jensen: Bicycle Tracks and Lanes, a Before - After Study (Copenhagen, Denmark)
http://trafitec.dk/sites/default/files/publications/bicycle%20tracks%20and%20lanes.pdf
"The safety effects of bicycle tracks in urban areas are an increase of about 10 percent in both crashes and injuries. The safety effects of bicycle lanes in urban areas are an increase of 5 percent in crashes and 15 percent in injuries. Bicyclists’ safety has worsened on roads where bicycle facilities have been implemented."

2008 Agerholm: Traffic Safety on Bicycle Paths (Western Denmark)
http://vbn.aau.dk/files/14344951/agerholm_et_al._bicycle_paths.pdf
"So the main results are that bicycle paths impair traffic safety and this is mainly due to more accidents at intersections."

And here's the reason:

1987 Grüne Radler review: Police Bicycle Crash Study (Berlin, Germany)
http://john-s-allen.com/research/berlin_1987/index.html
"...with increasing experience, it became ever clearer that the sidepaths are dangerous - more dangerous than riding in the roadway. There is a simple reason for this: the design and location of the sidepaths conflict with the most important principle of traffic safety, the slogan 'Visibility is safety'."

And the latest research says this:

2011 Reid: Infrastructure and Cyclist Safety (UK)
http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Campaigns/1111_TRL_PPR580-Cycle-infra-safety_rpt.pdf
"...evidence suggests that the points at which segregated networks intersect with highways offer heightened risk, potentially of sufficient magnitude to offset the safety benefits of removing cyclists from contact with vehicles in other locations."

Cyclists who avoid the road or who ride in the gutter are at far greater collision risk than those who choose to ride well into the roadway. 90% of published peer reviewed studies confirm this. You can say what you like, but it's not going to change the fact that what you're advocating has been proven time after time to be less safe than what I'm advocating.


And there's one more reason for not taking the lane on high speed, heavy traffic roads: People tend to tailgate, and if one driver sees you a little late, and swerves to avoid hitting you, the one behind him may not be able to react in time.

All the more reason to take the lane. Cyclists who take the lane are visible from much farther away. Cyclists who ride in the gutter are in far greater danger from tailgating motorists.