Northern California - cyclist killed in Saratoga

Kind of strange accident. Hopefully more details will appear soon.

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_6213933

Bicyclist dies in Saratoga after collision with parked SUV
By Jeff Thomas
Mercury News
San Jose Mercury News
Article Launched:06/23/2007 03:24:19 PM PDT

A bicyclist was killed Saturday afternoon on Saratoga Avenue after he ran into a parked sport-utility vehicle and crashed through the rear window, a Santa Clara County sheriff's spokesman said.

The driver of the SUV was in the vehicle at the time of the accident, Sgt. Ed Wise said.

The bicyclist, a man in his mid-30s, suffered severe neck injuries when he went through the window, Wise said. He died at the scene.

The man was wearing bike gear, including a helmet and clip-in bicycle shoes, and was riding a road bike, which was snapped in half from the force of the impact, Wise said. The bicyclist was not carrying identification, so his name is not yet known.

Witnesses told sheriff's deputies that the Toyota Highlander, driven by a man in his 60s, had just pulled over and parked on the shoulder of westbound Saratoga Avenue past Lawrence Expressway in Saratoga when the accident occurred.

"Either the bicyclist didn't see the car, or he couldn't stop in time," Wise said. "That is still being investigated."

Wise said investigators do not believe there had been a previous altercation between the two that may have caused the driver to stop.

There is a bike lane on that stretch of Saratoga, he said, but it was unclear if the vehicle was partially in the lane or pulled entirely over onto the shoulder.

"Right now, it just appears to be an accident," Wise said. The driver of the SUV was not identified, and no arrests have been made, he said. "Understandably, he is quite upset."

Contact Jeff Thomas at jthomas@mercurynews.com.

This happened to another cyclist I think 2 years ago. The guy was absolutely flying either head down in the drops or in a TT position and just creamed a parked car.

Yes, I would like more details. What a sad thing to read on such a beautiful day for riding. When I read the headline, I thought someone had smashed into a parked car in a parking lot, but the SUV was pulled over and parked on the shoulder of a pretty busy road - I wonder why? I hope there are some other witnesses to the accident, but I have a feeling what really happened is going to get all Rashomon.

This happened to another cyclist I think 2 years ago. The guy was absolutely flying either head down in the drops or in a TT position and just creamed a parked car.

In this case, it appears that the SUV was only stopped for a few seconds and possibly in an illegal location, so the exact details are pretty important.

I always thought the shoulder is exactly where a car would stop.

I always thought the shoulder is exactly where a car would stop.

Stopping on the shoulder is sometimes legal, but never if you cut someone off to to it. Also, the article says there is some question about whether the SUV stopped in the bike lane or on the shoulder to the side of the bike lane. I'm not sure why that is a question, since the article does not say the SUV moved after the crash.

I guess it's a NYC thing, but a rider ain't too bright if a car, especially moving at high way speeds, pulls way ahead of someone, stops, and the rider can't react in time to either stop or go around it. Unless they're riding my carbon wheels in the rain, in which case they'll neither stop nor swerve out of the way.

I guess it's a NYC thing, but a rider ain't too bright if a car, especially moving at high way speeds, pulls way ahead of someone, stops, and the rider can't react in time to either stop or go around it. Unless they're riding my carbon wheels in the rain, in which case they'll neither stop nor swerve out of the way.

The article does not say that the SUV pulled way in front of the cyclist and then stopped. It could have quickly veered into the bike lane with the bicycle hitting it just after (or even before) it stopped. The article does say that the police are investigating whether or not the bicyclist had enough time to stop safely.

I sometimes see some young fella going down a busy road on their bike at 25 mph with their nose down against the front tire. I've often wondered if he realizes that when pro cyclists ride in that position, they are on a course that is closed to the general public and that has been cleared of obstructions and parked vehicles.

I often have vehicles turn right directly into my path, to get into a driveway, to make a right turn, to get a good parking stop, and sometimes (I think) just to harass some guy on a bike. I make it my practice on public roads to ride with my head up high, and to ride at a speed that permits an instant stop or evasion (actually, my maximum speed is low enough to make an almost instant stop or evasion).

We as cyclists always WISH drivers were more skilled, more careful and more conscious of cyclists and bikes. But, we also hope to with the mega-million lottery. In the "real" world, we have to protect ourselves, and that means we have to ride with our heads up high, to keep a very close eye on the motorized maniacs around us.

The other choice is to give up cycling, and stay home. And, THAT is not a real choice for those of us who really care about cycling.

Why all this blame the cyclist mentality? Unless you are riding less than 10mph, I bet I can get you to crash into the back of my car without trying too hard.

I ride this stretch of road all the time, and I'm likely to ride it again this PM, and what happens is there's a lane merge immediately after Lawrence (3->2 lanes) followed by the very beginning of a bike lane with additional parking space next to the curb. If the SUV parked at the beginning part it's a tight squeeze for everyone because there's not enough space for car + bike lane. What happens to me on a regular basis is people want to make a right turn into that first side street after the merge, so I usually pay extra attention around there because not everyone is courteous enough to slow and make a right behind you.

It'll be interesting as more details emerge from this story.

The most telling part of the story is where the Sheriff's Public Affairs Officer says that they don't know whether the SUV was parked in the bike lane at least partially, or totally on the shoulder. After an accident where someone was killed on the spot, "someone" moved the vehicle before the police got there??????????????????

Why all this blame the cyclist mentality? Unless you are riding less than 10mph, I bet I can get you to crash into the back of my car without trying too hard.

Why all this blame on the driver? I bet I can smash into the back of a parked car pretty easily.
It's very easy to assume either way but an incident such as this did happen before where the cyclist was simply zoned out.

I ride this stretch of road all the time, and I'm likely to ride it again this PM, and what happens is there's a lane merge immediately after Lawrence (3->2 lanes) followed by the very beginning of a bike lane with additional parking space next to the curb. If the SUV parked at the beginning part it's a tight squeeze for everyone because there's not enough space for car + bike lane. What happens to me on a regular basis is people want to make a right turn into that first side street after the merge, so I usually pay extra attention around there because not everyone is courteous enough to slow and make a right behind you.

It'll be interesting as more details emerge from this story.

Same here. I had similar thoughts. Rode past there this morning, looking for anything obvious but didn't see anything. I'm trying to figure out exactly where it was but that merge section is pretty likely. The turn is Cox Rd. I think?

It will be interesting to hear how this plays out, sounds like a very strange incident.

Here's (http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_6219361?nclick_check=1) an update.


Dead cyclist in Saratoga accident is identified
By Leslie Griffy
Mercury News
Article Launched: 06/24/2007 10:13:49 AM PDT


The Santa Clara County Coroner's Office today identified the cyclist who died in Saratoga Saturday afternoon as a 44-year-old San Jose man.
Neil Oda struck a parked sport-utility vehicle and crashed through its rear window as he pedaled on Saratoga Avenue about 12:30 p.m., Santa Clara Sheriff's Sgt. Ed Wise said.

Oda suffered severe neck injuries and was declared dead at the scene, Wise said.

He wore bike safety gear, including a helmet and clip-in bicycle shoes, and was riding a road bike that was snapped in half from the force of the impact, Wise said.

Witnesses told sheriff's deputies that the Toyota Highlander, driven by a man in his 60s, had just pulled over and parked on the shoulder of westbound Saratoga Avenue past Lawrence Expressway in Saratoga when the accident occurred.

The driver, who has not been identified, was in the SUV at the time of the crash, Wise said.

There is a bike lane on that stretch of Saratoga, he said, but it was unclear if the vehicle was partially in the lane or pulled entirely over onto the shoulder.

"Right now, it just appears to be an accident," Wise said.

No arrests have been made.


'Rode by there this PM and like 'nother reported there're no outward signs of anything happening other than some ashes from flares @ Lawrence & Saratoga, and a couple of areas with what looks like tempered glass bits. The next street down is Kosich Drive, or something like that, and there's no bike lane or shoulder to park until just past a bus stop about halfway down the block.

From another article (http://www.thelgnews.com/article/2007-6-29-lg-accident) on this incident:



Oda had been riding his bicycle westbound on Saratoga Avenue when the driver of a Toyota Highlander, a man in his 60s, pulled over onto the shoulder to answer his cell phone, partially blocking a designated bicycle lane. Oda's exact speed was unknown but Morganthayler estimated it could have been up to 25 miles an hour when he hit the Toyota from behind, shattering its rear window before going through it.

"It's tragic," Morganthayler said. "The driver was trying to do the right thing by pulling over and answering his phone and this happened."


Pulling over -- suddenly? -- and blocking a designated bicycling lane to answer your cell phone is the "right thing"? How about letting voice mail take the call?

Morganthayler said that from the looks of Oda's bicycle and equipment he was an experienced rider.

"He had all the right gear and a top-of-the-line bicycle," he said. "But no matter how experienced you are, you just really have to watch where you're going."

This is another interesting quote.

Lots of interesting stuff from that article.

It sounds like the driver may have been a tad distracted, to be sure, but I did not get the impression that he pulled over so suddenly so as not to even allow the cyclist to react.

A witness to the June 23 accident told police that Oda appeared to have plenty of time to stop before hitting the vehicle but only began to veer to the left to avoid hitting it at the very last second.
And as such this next quote does not seem out of line:

"The impact was so very severe that we're theorizing the cyclist had his head down and was in full racing form and did not see the vehicle until the last minute," Morganthayler said.


I think the "full racing form" and other editorializing about the cyclist's equipment and clothing could probably be left out, but it sounds like their position is basically that the cyclist was not looking ahead (or not looking far enough ahead given the speed he was traveling). To be sure, it probably wasn't a good idea for the driver to stop in the bike lane but I don't think it's fair to only point the finger at him.

I long ago stopped trying to speculate based on skimpy news reports. By that I mean skimpy on facts, not skimpy on words.

I think I gave it up when I drove a buddy (non-cyclist) home from the hospital after an accident. He had many bandages, one cast, one splint and several dozen stitches. He was bedridden for about a week and unable to work for two. The newpaper said he was "treated and released."

I long ago stopped trying to speculate based on skimpy news reports. By that I mean skimpy on facts

That's probably good practice, but in this case the star witness is dead...we probably won't ever know exactly what happened. That's not going to stop anyone, including the police, from speculating, and it'll probably go unchallenged (it doesn't sound like they are going to press charges).

To be sure, it probably wasn't a good idea for the driver to stop in the bike lane but I don't think it's fair to only point the finger at him.

It wasn't the potential culpability of the driver that jumped out at me so much as the police officer's interpretation of what happened.

If pulling into a bike lane is the right thing to do when you get a cell phone call, that suggests the officer believes taking the call while remaining in traffic is the wrong thing to do. By pulling over, the driver was only potentially endangering cyclists. By remaining in traffic, he might be endangering other motorists, and that of course would be bad.

A few months ago, in the wake of the Critical Mass incident in SF, one of the local TV stations did a gotcha piece on car/cyclist collisions. According to CHP statistics, the reporter explained, cyclists are at fault something like 60% of the time. I believe a cycling advocate may have raised the question of potential CHP bias in interpreting these accidents; in any case, there was footage of a CHP spokesperson explaining that they absolutely no way no how had any bias when collecting data on these accidents.

Which to me just doesn't seem that likely. Roads are primarily designed for cars. Roads are primarily used by cars. Given these facts, it's fairly easy to have a bias against cyclists even if you don't have any malicious intent against them, and I think the remarks of the officer quoted in the story reflect this. To me, it sounds like he's saying that any blame should be applied to fate and the cyclist. Meanwhile, not only is the driver blameless; he was actually trying to do the right thing...

Does anyone know what the signage (if any) is like on that section of road? Does it say "Bike Lane, No Stopping or Standing" or anything like that?

It wasn't the potential culpability of the driver that jumped out at me so much as the police officer's interpretation of what happened.

If pulling into a bike lane is the right thing to do when you get a cell phone call, that suggests the officer believes taking the call while remaining in traffic is the wrong thing to do. By pulling over, the driver was only potentially endangering cyclists. By remaining in traffic, he might be endangering other motorists, and that of course would be bad.

A few months ago, in the wake of the Critical Mass incident in SF, one of the local TV stations did a gotcha piece on car/cyclist collisions. According to CHP statistics, the reporter explained, cyclists are at fault something like 60% of the time. I believe a cycling advocate may have raised the question of potential CHP bias in interpreting these accidents; in any case, there was footage of a CHP spokesperson explaining that they absolutely no way no how had any bias when collecting data on these accidents.

Which to me just doesn't seem that likely. Roads are primarily designed for cars. Roads are primarily used by cars. Given these facts, it's fairly easy to have a bias against cyclists even if you don't have any malicious intent against them, and I think the remarks of the officer quoted in the story reflect this. To me, it sounds like he's saying that any blame should be applied to fate and the cyclist. Meanwhile, not only is the driver blameless; he was actually trying to do the right thing...

Hello ConstantRider,

I must argue just a bit regarding bias. I'm a CHP sergeant and a bicyclist. There are many on the department who also enjoy riding. All of us, even the non-riders, do our very best to determine who is actually at fault. We actually pride ourselves on being as accurate as possible. No officer I know would blindly assume a bicyclist was at fault. We are keenly aware of the fact that motorists are often very distracted with non-driving issues, i.e. cell phones, food, radio stations, etc. Whereas, riders are generally not subject to these distractions. However, even experienced riders can be at fault when they assume that motorists will "make way" for them. As riders, we have to remember we are not on a closed course (usually) and pretend as if we were invisible. "High visual horizon" is what we teach our young officers; look further down the road for the h***ard. Just my two cents,

Respectfully

Hello ConstantRider,

I must argue just a bit regarding bias. I'm a CHP sergeant and a bicyclist. There are many on the department who also enjoy riding. All of us, even the non-riders, do our very best to determine who is actually at fault. We actually pride ourselves on being as accurate as possible. No officer I know would blindly assume a bicyclist was at fault. We are keenly aware of the fact that motorists are often very distracted with non-driving issues, i.e. cell phones, food, radio stations, etc. Whereas, riders are generally not subject to these distractions. However, even experienced riders can be at fault when they assume that motorists will "make way" for them. As riders, we have to remember we are not on a closed course (usually) and pretend as if we were invisible. "High visual horizon" is what we teach our young officers; look further down the road for the h***ard. Just my two cents,

Respectfully


Hi Gunslinger,

Thanks for posting and sharing your perspective. As with any organization, Im sure there's a wide range of viewpoints within the CHP. Also, when I talk about bias, I don't mean necessarily mean an explicit disdain for bicyclists and their rights; I mean something subtler than that, and I think it affects everyone in our car-centric culture, including cyclists and probably CHP officers.

For example, even with as much as I ride (both recreationally and for transportation to get around town), when I get behind the wheel of a car I often catch myself getting frustrated with cyclists slowing me down, etc. Maybe I'm just more hypocritical than most. But when cars account for so much of the traffic flow, I think it's only natural to think of anything that aren't cars (bikes, pedestrians, buses) as impediments to the natural order of things.

In any case, I am curious about your "make way" statement. Can you be more specific about what you mean? If I'm cycling and I have the right of way in a situation, I do expect any cars in the area to respect that right of way.

Obviously, I have to assess the situation and be open to the possibility that they might not respect my right of way. But if I make the wrong assessment -- i.e., I think a car is going to yield to me because I have the right of way and it doesn't, so it hits me -- are you saying I'm at fault?

Hi Gunslinger,

Thanks for posting and sharing your perspective. As with any organization, Im sure there's a wide range of viewpoints within the CHP. Also, when I talk about bias, I don't mean necessarily mean an explicit disdain for bicyclists and their rights; I mean something subtler than that, and I think it affects everyone in our car-centric culture, including cyclists and probably CHP officers.

For example, even with as much as I ride (both recreationally and for transportation to get around town), when I get behind the wheel of a car I often catch myself getting frustrated with cyclists slowing me down, etc. Maybe I'm just more hypocritical than most. But when cars account for so much of the traffic flow, I think it's only natural to think of anything that aren't cars (bikes, pedestrians, buses) as impediments to the natural order of things.

In any case, I am curious about your "make way" statement. Can you be more specific about what you mean? If I'm cycling and I have the right of way in a situation, I do expect any cars in the area to respect that right of way.

Obviously, I have to assess the situation and be open to the possibility that they might not respect my right of way. But if I make the wrong assessment -- i.e., I think a car is going to yield to me because I have the right of way and it doesn't, so it hits me -- are you saying I'm at fault?

No, no, not at all. I was simply referring to forcing the issue. Some cagers look at riders as an obstacle instead of persons legally entitled to share the road. Where the danger lies is in trying to force the motorist to respect our right-of-way. I get the same reaction when I ride my personal motorcycle. Sometimes I think the "bully" comes out of people when they get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle, and they assume because they are larger they automatically have the right-of-way. Trying to force the issue while on a bicycle (or motorcycle, for that matter) is a recipe for disaster. At that point, it doesn't matter who's at fault. So when I said, "make way" maybe a better choice would have been, "notice you and allow you your porton of the roadway". Hopefully this clears up my muddy meaning?

Respectfully

are you saying I'm at fault?

I think he is referring to be cautious and ryde defensively at all times. Its pretty interesting how this conversation has come out.

I did some homework by reading cycle crash related articles from the marin E- newspaper and it seems to me even on court cyclists are allready at fault. Many comments expressed their anger toward how this state claims the share the road policy but at the moment of truth is just an illusion.

There is no way to predict how people may react and accidents CAN occur at any given time. The dangers are very clear and if I really meditate about me cycling, I must be somewhat crazy to be practicing this sport. I thought that bungie jumping or sky diving was a crazy sport, but I do think cycling is competing or even winning on the danger level.

I try to be as cautious as possible and to cycle finding my own way and always think of a Plan B whenever vehicles are nearby, if any.