Advocacy & Safety - Bicycle - Auto Accident

From Manhattan KS

Bicyclist hurt in accident on Anderson
Kevin Elliott kelliott@themercury.com
A 30-year-old veterinary resident was struck by a car and seriously injured while riding his bicycle in the 6400 block of Anderson Avenue this morning.

Brian Caserto, a first-year resident of Kansas State University's veterinarian medical program, was about four-feet into the traffic lane when he was struck from behind by a 1993 Ford Escort at about 6:40 a.m. Caserto was wearing a helmet when he was "launched" about 90-feet from the point of impact, said Lt. Kurt Moldrup of the Riley County Police Department.

Moldrup said the car, driven by Thad Jordan, 38, of Clay Center, was heading east on Anderson behind a sport utility vehicle. He said the SUV had slowed down and swerved into the opposite lane to avoid hitting Caserto. Jordan also slowed down, but was unable to steer clear of the bicycle, Moldrup said. Police said the road has only a narrow gravel shoulder and speed limits between 45-55 mph. No citations were issued.

http://www.themercury.com/News/article.aspx?articleId=1dcb1e3bdb5d4502bbfc92a56601067e

The PD Patrol Captian is a member of our cycling group. Will discuss this with him on friday morning and get his slant on why no citation was issued.

Brian Caserto, a first-year resident of Kansas State University's veterinarian medical program, was about four-feet into the traffic lane when he was struck from behind... He said the SUV had slowed down and swerved into the opposite lane to avoid hitting Caserto. Jordan also slowed down, but was unable to steer clear of the bicycle, Moldrup said. Police said the road has only a narrow gravel shoulder and speed limits between 45-55 mph.Hmmmm. According to some here, this accident is impossible....

And of course, my thoughts go out to the injured cyclist.

Perhaps Thad was following too close for conditions?

I doubt that a citation would've been issued if if Thad had struck a car from behind, don't you?:mad:

Do we say it is impossible? No. But taking a lane reduces many risks. Inattentive driving is not a risk that is reduced by taking a lane. (Nor does cowering in the gravel along the roadway seem to reduce the risk of inattentive driving either.)

All this accidents freak me out.

Just today cycling a Red Ford Mustang here in Petaluma invaded my five feet wide bike lane and hit the horn real loud barely passing me within inches.

He passed so quick I could not read his plates and had to keep my focus as I lost control of the bike when the driver which seemed like a young male did his circus act.

I was about to stop incoming traffic and demand follow the guy in the Mustang, but changed my mind and just decided to go home.

I still dont get it as it happened on Stony Point at the last leg before reaching Dennys in Petaluma and all that section is wide open road. I guess it made him real happy and really achieved a good laugh.

Its just crazy...

Hmmmm. According to some here, this accident is impossible....
So you have a hard time understanding the difference between "impossible" and "rare/infrequent"!:rolleyes:

Just awful. Hope the cyclist recovers fast and heals well. This hits close to home.

I want to know how you can rear-end somebody and not get a citation? I thought that was a given in an automobile accident.

Please let us know what your friend says.

Do we say it is impossible? No. But taking a lane reduces many risks. Inattentive driving is not a risk that is reduced by taking a lane. (Nor does cowering in the gravel along the roadway seem to reduce the risk of inattentive driving either.)

Now that's just silly. Many (almost all?) collisions where the car driver is at fault are a result of 'inattentive driving': rear-enders as posted here, rear-enders from drift into the bike lane, right hooks, left hooks, etc., etc.

The whole argument about lane positioning is about the trade-offs among the various risks, most notably, rear-enders vs. right hooks. Every time someone posts an article about a car-bike collision, everyone jumps in with their theories about how this or that could have been done differently. Blue Order is (correctly) pointing out that, in this particular example, this accident would not have occured had the cyclist been in a bike lane.

It's all about trade-offs people.

Just one of the many benefits of fully segregated cycling infrastructure is that it makes this sort of incident impossible. If you think it's rare/infrequent just bear in mind that this is the most frequent type of car-car collision. As the number of transportation & utility cyclists increase there is no reason to beleive that the incidence of this type of car-bicycle collision won't also increace.

For all the benefits transport & utility cycling brings to the individual and the community we DESERVE our own segregated infrastructure, 100% safe from irresponsible people oblivious and totally indifferent to the consequences of their actions, of which there are many behind the wheel. Not just bike lanes but bike lanes with physical barriers between them and motorised traffic.

So How are we going to fit the 100% seperate roads and 100% seperate bike paths and 100% seperate pedestrian paths and 100% seperate rail tracks into our cities at a reasonable cost. Four sets of fully grade seperated facilities really gets expensive.

The whole argument about lane positioning is about the trade-offs among the various risks, most notably, rear-enders vs. right hooks. Every time someone posts an article about a car-bike collision, everyone jumps in with their theories about how this or that could have been done differently. Blue Order is (correctly) pointing out that, in this particular example, this accident would not have occured had the cyclist been in a bike lane.

It's all about trade-offs people.Yeah, we all know cyclist never get hit from behind in bike lanes! :rolleyes:

I have had more close calls with being hit from behind when in a bike lane, than I have when taking the lane. So the better trade off for me, is to take the lane.

So How are we going to fit the 100% seperate roads and 100% seperate bike paths and 100% seperate pedestrian paths and 100% seperate rail tracks into our cities at a reasonable cost. Four sets of fully grade seperated facilities really gets expensive.

Rail tracks are already 100% separate, so are ped paths and roads (with some rare exceptions). Many of our arterials and freeways here in Sydney have segragated cycleways, some secondary roads also. We even have a number of segragated busways which works really well.

If we can afford it here in Australia, with the population equivalent to New York city but roughly the same land mass as the USA, then surely you can afford it also. Heck, we even have far more comprehensive public health and welfare systems we fund compared to the USA, you guys should be rolling in money by comparison..... if only it wasn't being p!ssed up the wall in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo, half a dozen or so carrier groups, and those 700-odd military bases around the globe.

Cool, I did not realize Australia had no pedestrian deaths. Please send pics of your sidewalks that never cross roads.


I guess you wished we had not stopped the Japenese some years ago as well.

Yeah, we all know cyclist never get hit from behind in bike lanes! :rolleyes:


...which I noted in the part you didn't quote...

So, yes, the trade-offs should have read:

rear-enders such as the one in the OP + right-hooks from people who still think they can go around you + getting squeezed over by some idiot who thinks he can pass you before he hits that semi head on + left hooks + all the other possible scenarios VERSUS rear-enders from drifters + right hooks + left hooks + getting doored + getting squeezed by the jerk passing the stopped cars on the right + drive-way pull-outs + every other possible scenario...

Is that better?

now, when they finally install bike-only roads, will they also ensure a 10mph speed limit? of course they will:
"those crazy lycra fools nearly killed my little Johnnie this morning. They should slow down or drive a car."

bikes are vehicles too. they should be given space on roads, just like other vehicles. it was just a lot easier when ALL vehicles only managed about 30mph tops.

don't force segregation on us, we already have the rights, giving them up won't help the situation at all.

Cool, I did not realize Australia had no pedestrian deaths. Please send pics of your sidewalks that never cross roads.

Ohmigod, do i detect a note of sarcasm from AN AMERICAN? i never woulda thunk it.

perhaps we can supply you with another statistic. 2002 shooting deaths in america: 169,000.

love that right to bear arms crap you have there. I really, really need to own an M60.

The only way I can see this type of accident occurring is if the car driver was following the SUV too closely, and the SUV driver probably failed to use his/her turn signal to indicate the pass. At the minimum the driver of the car should have been cited for following too closely. If there had been a large boulder in the road, or a stalled car with a family inside, he would have hit those too. I wonder if he would have been cited if he had hit a stalled car and injured the occupants of the car.

I deal with this type of situation occasionally on my commute, and whenever I'm being passed I keep a close eye on my rear view mirror to try to make sure the 2nd vehicle and any additional vehicles are either moving to pass or slowing down. I haven't had a situation where the 2nd and additional vehicles didn't see me, so I don't really know if there'd be time for me to bail on the side of the road, but I like to hope I'd be able to veer right in time.

169,000 shooting deaths sounds like a really high number urodacus...that sounds closer to the number that die from using prescription drugs (that were prescribed to them) in an average year in America.

perhaps we can supply you with another statistic. 2002 shooting deaths in america: 169,000.Off topic are we? Did you have to go to one of those absurd gun control websites to get that #?


In the U.S. for 2001, there were 29,573 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,869; Homicide 11,348; Accident 802; Legal Intervention 323; Undetermined 231.(CDC, 2004)

I guess you folks do not have suicides or homicides?

Cool, I did not realize Australia had no pedestrian deaths. Please send pics of your sidewalks that never cross roads.


I guess you wished we had not stopped the Japenese some years ago as well.

I think you misunderstood me, my apologies for not being clearer. I was only making an observation regarding how cashed up you could otherwise be today (not 60 years ago) and how you may otherwise be able to afford the relatively modest cost of segragated cycling infrastructure. I couldn't care less how you actually spend it, that's between you and your government, nothing to do with me. Just compare the cost per mile of segragated cycling infrastructure compared to that of motorised transport, it's cheap by comparison.

....I'll get you some photos of those grade separated sidewalks if you really are interested (yes, we do have them). As for no pedestrian deaths in Australia, I'm not sure where you got that from but I do know that I never made any such claim, not even remotely close.

Your post imply none of your pedestrian facilities cross the roads (100% seperate). That must mean cars can never hit pedestrians in Australia.

Are you now telling us that many of your sidewalks do cross roads at grade and that pedestrians do get hit at those crossings?

Your post imply none of your pedestrian facilities cross the roads (100% seperate).
I really hope you're just being facetious. Arterial roads have either pedestrian-specific lights to cotrol crossings, what's becoming more common with new infrastructure projects are pedestrian overpasses which make them completely grade separate.
That must mean cars can never hit pedestrians in Australia. I never said that or anything like it, it's your assumption/deduction/assertion/whatever and unfortunately its incorrect.

Are you now telling us that many of your sidewalks do cross roads at grade and that pedestrians do get hit at those crossings? Ofcourse they do. What I was saying was that sidewalks are segragated infrastructure i.e. they are physically separate to the road surface. I never said the intersections were all 100% segragated (although many are) but I think you knew that and are just being facetious or argumentative, perhaps in an effort to derail the original discussion.

Back to segragated cycling infrastructure versus sharing the road with motorised traffic. My original assertion was that we transport & utility cyclists deserve the level of safety that only segregated cycleways can provide and I stand by that. You objected on grounds of cost to which I say that per mile it's cheap in comparison to just about all other types of transport infrastructure.

My current commute is 30 miles each way, about 25 of which is on a network of interconnected segragated cycling infrastructure which starts about 500 yards from my home and ends at a railway station. Just picture a commute without cars or trucks, without noxious exhaust fumes, where the only mechanical noise is your drivetrain and passing bikes - unless you're riding along with a fellow commuter having a chat about whatever just keeping each other company or a bit of a race;). The people you intarct with are the familiar faces of your fellow cycle commuters. No chance whatsoever of being run down (accidentally or deliberately), cut off, hooked, garbage thrown at you, verbally or physically abused, run off the road, etc. You flat and almost instantly there's offers of assistance from familiar looking 'strangers'. You feel safe, every ride is a joy, like a social weekend ride, an exercise in mental relaxation.

That's what I get to do through the heart of this city every day on segragated cycling infrastructure and it's truly paradise; it's something achievable and worth advocating for. VC is such a compromise by comparison (Why do you want to advocate for scraps of road space thrown down to you by motorists when you can advocate for the right to sit at the head of your own table?). That's what IMO we should be advocating for, especially in light of the OP of this thread.

I really don't understand how the driver was not ticketed. If it had been a slow moving car in front of the SUV he'd struck, he'd have been ticketed. Why are bikes not treated the same under the law?

That's what I get to do through the heart of this city every day on segragated cycling infrastructure and it's truly paradise; it's something achievable and worth advocating for. VC is such a compromise by comparison (Why do you want to advocate for scraps of road space thrown down to you by motorists when you can advocate for the right to sit at the head of your own table?). That's what IMO we should be advocating for, especially in light of the OP of this thread.

Aside from work, where else can you get by using this segregated path system? Anywhere you need to go? You mention that you still have 5 miles left to ride to work after using the path. Why are you taking that risk? Why not wait until they build the path all the way to work?

Aside from work, where else can you get by using this segregated path system? Anywhere you need to go?
Basically everywhere. To all shopping, sporting, and entertainment ammenities that we (my family and I) frequent. It takes me to the houses of almost all the people I visit often - friend's & family. The network is designed in parallel with the road system in that there are completely grade separate 'trunk' route cycleways with on/off ramps and overpasses that parallel highways/freeways, they have secondary cycleways radiating out creating loops connecting local pockets of neighborhoods with local social & sporting ammenities, local shopping precincts, and local enployment/industrial areas. They in turn have local MUPs radiating out into neighborhoods and local parks.

My wife doesn't know the first thing about cycling in heavy traffic (except quiet local neighborhood streets), she never has because she has never needed to, yet she regularly tows the kids in the trailer to various shopping areas and to local parks, to my parent's place, the swimming center, daycare, etc. all on the bike path network.

You mention that you still have 5 miles left to ride to work after using the path. Why are you taking that risk? Why not wait until they build the path all the way to work?
I used to ride the last 5 miles into the central business district but it's absolute torture compared to the previous 25 miles so I just take the train for those last 5 miles. It only costs me a couple of dollars a day, and its about 20 minutes faster than riding that last stretch. It wasn't unusual to have 2 or 3 agressive encounters a week (mostly deliberate road rage acts by motorists) when I used to ride it.

From Manhattan KS

Bicyclist hurt in accident on Anderson
Kevin Elliott kelliott@themercury.com
Brian Caserto, a first-year resident of Kansas State University's veterinarian medical program, was about four-feet into the traffic lane when he was struck from behind by a 1993 Ford Escort at about 6:40 a.m. Caserto was wearing a helmet when he was "launched" about 90-feet from the point of impact, said Lt. Kurt Moldrup of the Riley County Police Department.
The Ford Escort, which is significantly shorter and narrower than an SUV wouldn't have been able to see anything around it. 6:40am is just shortly after sunrise, and if they were driving east (into the sun), that cyclist would have been pretty hard to see. Furthermore, regardless of whether it's right or not, most motorists are not going to expect a bike to be four feet from the shoulder on a road with a posted limit of 55mph. He clearly tried to avoid impact but didn't until it was too late, so he likely wasn't "inattentive." It's a really dangerous time of day to travel, and people don't have the sense to ease up a little bit.

Sorry the guy got hit.

I think this accident raises the question of whether its prudent to ride on high speed roads. Not whether bicyclists have the right to ride on high speed roads, but is it prudent.

I try to ride on streets where the relative speed betweeen me and traffic is as small as possible, in other words, where I can keep up with the traffic flow. The speed limit on this road was 45-55. Its not clear from the post, but I would just not ride on a road (for any distance) where the average speed is 45-55. If the road is posted 55 and traffic is moving at 30 mph, no problem, but I'm not going to ride on a road where the traffic flow is 55.

I think this accident raises the question of whether its prudent to ride on high speed roads. Not whether bicyclists have the right to ride on high speed roads, but is it prudent.

This is a good question. As a rider who routinely takes the lane on a short section of high speed narrow four lane road, I lean towards not prudent. The reason is simple. At least around here, motorists just follow too closely to each other. Even at high speeds (50 + mph in my case) they often drive in packs with only one or two car lengths between them. Under such conditions it is hardly possible for them to safely plan ahead and avoid everything unexpected. The problem is not the speed as much as it is the lack of following distance, and there's not much a cyclist can do to change that.

I only ride this road because my work place is on it so I have no choice. I would not ride these conditions for any long distance because it only seems like a matter of time until the predictable outcome eventually will happen.

So you have a hard time understanding the difference between "impossible" and "rare/infrequent"!:rolleyes:

That "rare and infrequent" however is "often and most probable" when looking at motorist/motorist collisions... so by taking the lane, are we not then subject to the same type of collisions that occur most often to other vehicles "in the lane?"


The statistics that indicate "rare and infrequent" were based on what most cyclists do... ride on the side of the road, not "in the lane."


Further, the statistics do indicate that country road overtaking collisions do occur more frequently... the same type of roads where there often is no choice but "to take a lane..."

So by acting more vehicular, are we then not subject to more vehicular type accidents?

Sorry the guy got hit.

I think this accident raises the question of whether its prudent to ride on high speed roads. Not whether bicyclists have the right to ride on high speed roads, but is it prudent.

I try to ride on streets where the relative speed betweeen me and traffic is as small as possible, in other words, where I can keep up with the traffic flow. The speed limit on this road was 45-55. Its not clear from the post, but I would just not ride on a road (for any distance) where the average speed is 45-55. If the road is posted 55 and traffic is moving at 30 mph, no problem, but I'm not going to ride on a road where the traffic flow is 55.

You would not be able to leave my neighborhood then. All the roads going north and south are 45 and 50MPH.

You would not be able to leave my neighborhood then. All the roads going north and south are 45 and 50MPH.

Since there are no alternatives does this mean bicycles are common on these roads? If so I would think that would make things a little safer since you'd be somewhat expected. I've seen very few cyclists on high speed roads around here, and never seen anyone take the lane on one.

I really don't understand how the driver was not ticketed. If it had been a slow moving car in front of the SUV he'd struck, he'd have been ticketed. Why are bikes not treated the same under the law?

Sometimes the police need more time to make sure they understand what happened. For instance, if there is a possibility that the cyclist swerved from the edge of the roadway into the path of the motorist, that would change the assignment of fault. Once their investigation is concluded, and the driver appears to be at fault, they would likely charge the driver.

Here in NC, we've seen a number of traffic crashes of different types where the police take a long time to finish investigating the collision before charging anyone. This means that the first news report often reads "no charges were filed" but if the collision was really newsworthy, such as a fatality, the news will run a story when charges are filed. Between these two times, the public forums and letters to the editor fill up with rants blaming whoever the easy target is. But the police would rather avoid making a false accusation. Well, unless you're a boorish lacrosse player.

Sorry the guy got hit.

I think this accident raises the question of whether its prudent to ride on high speed roads. Not whether bicyclists have the right to ride on high speed roads, but is it prudent.

I try to ride on streets where the relative speed betweeen me and traffic is as small as possible, in other words, where I can keep up with the traffic flow. The speed limit on this road was 45-55. Its not clear from the post, but I would just not ride on a road (for any distance) where the average speed is 45-55. If the road is posted 55 and traffic is moving at 30 mph, no problem, but I'm not going to ride on a road where the traffic flow is 55.

With the number of drifting off to the side of the road fatalities plus inner city left and right hooks that we've read about, is it prudent to cycle on the roads at all?

Since there are no alternatives does this mean bicycles are common on these roads? If so I would think that would make things a little safer since you'd be somewhat expected. I've seen very few cyclists on high speed roads around here, and never seen anyone take the lane on one.

Nope... people "don't ride." The majority of the few that do, tend to ride the sidewalks. There are some folks that ride the high speed arterials... like when I commute, but they are generally the kitted up cyclist.

So by acting more vehicular, are we then not subject to more vehicular type accidents?Not in my experience. Problems in bike lanes far outway problems when taking the lane, for me.

That "rare and infrequent" however is "often and most probable" when looking at motorist/motorist collisions... so by taking the lane, are we not then subject to the same type of collisions that occur most often to other vehicles "in the lane?"


The statistics that indicate "rare and infrequent" were based on what most cyclists do... ride on the side of the road, not "in the lane."


Further, the statistics do indicate that country road overtaking collisions do occur more frequently... the same type of roads where there often is no choice but "to take a lane..."

So by acting more vehicular, are we then not subject to more vehicular type accidents?This is what's overlooked in the arguments about where to ride. VCers like to say more accidents occur in bike lanes than in traffic lanes. Well, assuming that's correct, wouldn't that be expected, because there are more bikes in bike lanes than in traffic lanes? And if everybody rode in traffic lanes, wouldn't the traffic lanes be where we'd expect to see most accidents? And wouldn't this-- the most common type of motor vehicle accident-- become the most common type of motor vehicle/bicycle accident?

I really hope you're just being facetious. Arterial roads have either pedestrian-specific lights to cotrol crossings, what's becoming more common with new infrastructure projects are pedestrian overpasses which make them completely grade separate.
I never said that or anything like it, it's your assumption/deduction/assertion/whatever and unfortunately its incorrect.

Ofcourse they do. What I was saying was that sidewalks are segragated infrastructure i.e. they are physically separate to the road surface. I never said the intersections were all 100% segragated (although many are) but I think you knew that and are just being facetious or argumentative, perhaps in an effort to derail the original discussion.

Back to segragated cycling infrastructure versus sharing the road with motorised traffic. My original assertion was that we transport & utility cyclists deserve the level of safety that only segregated cycleways can provide and I stand by that. You objected on grounds of cost to which I say that per mile it's cheap in comparison to just about all other types of transport infrastructure.

My current commute is 30 miles each way, about 25 of which is on a network of interconnected segragated cycling infrastructure which starts about 500 yards from my home and ends at a railway station. Just picture a commute without cars or trucks, without noxious exhaust fumes, where the only mechanical noise is your drivetrain and passing bikes - unless you're riding along with a fellow commuter having a chat about whatever just keeping each other company or a bit of a race;). The people you intarct with are the familiar faces of your fellow cycle commuters. No chance whatsoever of being run down (accidentally or deliberately), cut off, hooked, garbage thrown at you, verbally or physically abused, run off the road, etc. You flat and almost instantly there's offers of assistance from familiar looking 'strangers'. You feel safe, every ride is a joy, like a social weekend ride, an exercise in mental relaxation.

That's what I get to do through the heart of this city every day on segragated cycling infrastructure and it's truly paradise; it's something achievable and worth advocating for. VC is such a compromise by comparison (Why do you want to advocate for scraps of road space thrown down to you by motorists when you can advocate for the right to sit at the head of your own table?). That's what IMO we should be advocating for, especially in light of the OP of this thread.
As the sidewalk comparison points out, the biggest problems for pedestrians are at intersections. It is the same situation for cyclist regardless if they ride the road, the sidewalk, a bike lane or a bike path. So unless you build completely grade separated bike paths, you have done little to reduce the risk to cyclist.

If you want the path because it is more pleasant to ride on, that is a valid point, but the trade off is that paths tend to be slower for commuters and add cost to infrastructure. But, please do not claim that bike paths are safer. They are not, unless they are completely grade separated.

This is what's overlooked in the arguments about where to ride. VCers like to say more accidents occur in bike lanes than in traffic lanes. Well, assuming that's correct, wouldn't that be expected, because there are more bikes in bike lanes than in traffic lanes? And if everybody rode in traffic lanes, wouldn't the traffic lanes be where we'd expect to see most accidents? And wouldn't this-- the most common type of motor vehicle accident-- become the most common type of motor vehicle/bicycle accident?Actually, I and at least some other VCers like to say, more accidents occur at intersections with bike lanes than at intersections without bike lanes. As well as, motorist tend to pass cyclist closer when the cyclist is in a bike lane then when a cyclist has taken the lane.

Actually, I and at least some other VCers like to say, more accidents occur at intersections with bike lanes than at intersections without bike lanes. As well as, motorist tend to pass cyclist closer when the cyclist is in a bike lane then when a cyclist has taken the lane.I also think that intersections is where they happen. But "he who shall not be named" is adamant that cyclists should ride in the traffic lanes (for lack of a better term) rather than the bike lanes, because bike lanes are where the accidents occur.

As the sidewalk comparison points out, the biggest problems for pedestrians are at intersections. It is the same situation for cyclist regardless if they ride the road, the sidewalk, a bike lane or a bike path. So unless you build completely grade separated bike paths, you have done little to reduce the risk to cyclist.
Did you actually read my post? I think you need to actually experience something like my commute before you get it. You've inspired me to do a photo essay on my commute which I'll post in a thread in the commuting forum. You'll see the grade separate overpasses (and some underpasses) over major intersections.

My experience does not concurr with your claim. The vast majority of agressive/dangerous moves drivers have pulled on me have NOT been at intersections and neither was the incident described in the OP of this thread.

If you want the path because it is more pleasant to ride on, that is a valid point, but the trade off is that paths tend to be slower for commuters and add cost to infrastructure. But, please do not claim that bike paths are safer. They are not, unless they are completely grade separated.

My commute is in fact faster on cycleways than on the street. Far fewer intersections that I need to stop at for one (3 or 4 compared to dozens). My experience shows that our cycleway network is faster, more efficient, and significantly safer for cyclists than the alternative major roads. On our cycleways I will never be road raged, cut off, hooked, run off the road, swerved at, spat at, or have something thrown at me from a moving car, I won't be "accidentally" hit by an inattentive, drunk, or reckless driver.... and I won't ever be struck from behind like the OP, which was my original and still unrefuted point. Isn't that a significant increase in safety? (rhetorical question)

The constructioin of our cycleways has also fuelled a massive increase in utility & transport cycling. I've spoken to dozens of cyclists along my route who have stated that if it were not for our cycleways they'd still be driving. I don't have the details at hand but I was recently looking at a local council study of cycleway patronage and in every case, when a new major route was built the corresponding arterial road saw an almost 100% decrease in the number of cyclists using it, along with a huge increase in the number of cyclists using the new cycleway. In every case the nubber of cyclists on the cycleway grew to much higher levels than the number that was previously using the arterial road. These are not local MUPs I'm talking about here, these are transport corridors that actually go from A to B and are used as such.

This is what's overlooked in the arguments about where to ride. VCers like to say more accidents occur in bike lanes than in traffic lanes. Well, assuming that's correct, wouldn't that be expected, because there are more bikes in bike lanes than in traffic lanes? And if everybody rode in traffic lanes, wouldn't the traffic lanes be where we'd expect to see most accidents? And wouldn't this-- the most common type of motor vehicle accident-- become the most common type of motor vehicle/bicycle accident?

Exactly. +1000 :beer::beer::beer:

Did you actually read my post? I think you need to actually experience something like my commute before you get it. You've inspired me to do a photo essay on my commute which I'll post in a thread in the commuting forum. You'll see the grade separate overpasses (and some underpasses) over major intersections.

My experience does not concurr with your claim. The vast majority of agressive/dangerous moves drivers have pulled on me have NOT been at intersections and neither was the incident described in the OP of this thread.



My commute is in fact faster on cycleways than on the street. Far fewer intersections that I need to stop at for one (3 or 4 compared to dozens). My experience shows that our cycleway network is faster, more efficient, and significantly safer for cyclists than the alternative major roads. On our cycleways I will never be road raged, cut off, hooked, run off the road, swerved at, spat at, or have something thrown at me from a moving car, I won't be "accidentally" hit by an inattentive, drunk, or reckless driver.... and I won't ever be struck from behind like the OP, which was my original and still unrefuted point. Isn't that a significant increase in safety? (rhetorical question)

The constructioin of our cycleways has also fuelled a massive increase in utility & transport cycling. I've spoken to dozens of cyclists along my route who have stated that if it were not for our cycleways they'd still be driving. I don't have the details at hand but I was recently looking at a local council study of cycleway patronage and in every case, when a new major route was built the corresponding arterial road saw an almost 100% decrease in the number of cyclists using it, along with a huge increase in the number of cyclists using the new cycleway. In every case the nubber of cyclists on the cycleway grew to much higher levels than the number that was previously using the arterial road. These are not local MUPs I'm talking about here, these are transport corridors that actually go from A to B and are used as such.

I tend to agree based on my experiences using a grade separated path here.

Using the grade separated path, I avoid having to slow for traffic lights, merge with motor traffic, and otherwise handling all the issues of dealing with motorists. I find I can cover 20 miles in just over an hour on the path.

On the other hand, traveling to my house on regular surface streets takes me just over 50 minutes to cover 10.5 miles.

My average speed nearly doubles by not having to deal with the various intersections, traffic lights and motor traffic issues on the high speed arterial streets (45MPH+ ) that I use to commute. I find well designed bike paths quite efficient.

Moldrup said the car, driven by Thad Jordan, 38, of Clay Center, was heading east on Anderson behind a sport utility vehicle. He said the SUV had slowed down and swerved into the opposite lane to avoid hitting Caserto. Jordan also slowed down, but was unable to steer clear of the bicycle, Moldrup said.

This is the one scenario that genuinely scares me on the bicycle.

As a driver (in the US), we are positoned to the left, and our view is often blocked by larger vehicles. On any given day, any one of us who drives, could have struck that same bicyclist. It's not even really inattention.... It's just an inability to see.

Sure we could follow less close, maybe focus intently on the right side of the road, but that just trades one risk for another.

I don't think there are many answers on this one.

Basically everywhere. To all shopping, sporting, and entertainment ammenities that we (my family and I) frequent. It takes me to the houses of almost all the people I visit often - friend's & family. The network is designed in parallel with the road system in that there are completely grade separate 'trunk' route cycleways with on/off ramps and overpasses that parallel highways/freeways, they have secondary cycleways radiating out creating loops connecting local pockets of neighborhoods with local social & sporting ammenities, local shopping precincts, and local enployment/industrial areas. They in turn have local MUPs radiating out into neighborhoods and local parks.

My wife doesn't know the first thing about cycling in heavy traffic (except quiet local neighborhood streets), she never has because she has never needed to, yet she regularly tows the kids in the trailer to various shopping areas and to local parks, to my parent's place, the swimming center, daycare, etc. all on the bike path network.

I used to ride the last 5 miles into the central business district but it's absolute torture compared to the previous 25 miles so I just take the train for those last 5 miles. It only costs me a couple of dollars a day, and its about 20 minutes faster than riding that last stretch. It wasn't unusual to have 2 or 3 agressive encounters a week (mostly deliberate road rage acts by motorists) when I used to ride it.

Any chance Google Earth has good satellite images of the area where you are? I'm curious to see how the roads are set up. It sounds as though there are small pockets of areas of interest without much in between, making for easy intersectionless stretches of road and paths.

This is the one scenario that genuinely scares me on the bicycle.

Me too. What can we as cyclists do to lessen the risk?

As a driver (in the US), we are positoned to the left, and our view is often blocked by larger vehicles. On any given day, any one of us who drives, could have struck that same bicyclist. It's not even really inattention.... It's just an inability to see.

Sure we could follow less close, maybe focus intently on the right side of the road, but that just trades one risk for another.

I don't think there are many answers on this one.

It's nice to see that some people can rationalize hitting a cyclist just because he was in the lane. :rolleyes:

I myself can not do that. If I hit a cyclist riding a straight line in front of me I would always consider it my fault.* By keeping a large enough gap you will ensure that you have enough time to change lanes, slow down, or even stop if necessary. Pity that so many can drive irresponsibly and then say the collision was unavoidable.

*EDIT- and by "fault" I mean that I could have and should have prevented it.

It's nice to see that some people can rationalize hitting a cyclist just because he was in the lane. :rolleyes:

I myself can not do that. If I hit a cyclist riding a straight line in front of me I would always consider it my fault. By keeping a large enough gap you will ensure that you have enough time to change lanes, slow down, or even stop if necessary. Pity that so many can drive irresponsibly and then say the collision was unavoidable.



I didn't say it wouldnt be my fault or you fault. I didn't rationalize making it ok to hit one. All I said was, if you had ever actually driven a car in your life, you would understand why this particular scenario is a frightening one.

By leaving a "large enough" gap you actually endanger yourself. How? By encouraging pinheads to slice in front of you, which guaranteed, one will within mere seconds of said gap appearing. Nevermind the laws and what is "correct" on paper... this the reality of driving in America.

Now you have not only failed make the potential bicyclist safer (you know full well the jackass that just stuffed himself into the gap has no idea whats in front of the car in front of you). You have also allowed a hazard to youself to be created as well.

And now I'm unsubscribing from this thread. I should known better than to actually care enough to post in the Advocacy and Safety forum. Geez.

Now that's just silly. Many (almost all?) collisions where the car driver is at fault are a result of 'inattentive driving': rear-enders as posted here, rear-enders from drift into the bike lane, right hooks, left hooks, etc., etc.

... Blue Order is (correctly) pointing out that, in this particular example, this accident would not have occured had the cyclist been in a bike lane.

Odd how when I reread his post and do not see that quote at all??? it seems to me that the way the accident would not have happened is if Tad had not been tailgating... you said yourself in your opening line how it could have also happened in the BL?? That motorist needs to be penalized. If the coppers don't do it, then the cyclist should embark on a little mission of RED LETTER campaign, when justice fails, take alternate action.

...
My current commute is 30 miles each way, about 25 of which is on a network of interconnected segragated cycling infrastructure which starts about 500 yards from my home and ends at a railway station... No chance whatsoever of being run down (accidentally or deliberately), cut off, hooked, garbage thrown at you, verbally or physically abused, run off the road, etc...

Hello Cyclaholic. Well you are a very lucky cyclist indeed that your home just happens to be at one end of the perfect cycleway (I like that word, it's like a limited access highway for cyclists). I myself have never commuted that far from any work, because I've never lived that far away, life choices. Of all the countries I've cycled in, I have only experienced one similar type of way and that was the little strip of asphalt connecting LaJolla, CA to the edge of San Diego, a much shorter distance indeed.

I would venture to say to your cycleway is the only form of BL that should exist. Because any BL increasing stoppage is unworthy to be so named.

Ride on :)

Ok, we all know how common it is for motor vehicles to follow each other much too closely, which makes conditions ripe for the type of accident in the OP. As an individual motorist, it is easy to take steps to ensure that we do not end up in a situation where we are surprised by a situation that we are not prepared to handle. But what about when we cycle in these conditions? What additional steps can a cyclist take to not get rear ended by a tailgating motorist who did not see him until it was too late?

Hi Vis clothes
Rear view mirror
Signal / communication with motorists
And...

Ok, we all know how common it is for motor vehicles to follow each other much too closely, which makes conditions ripe for the type of accident in the OP. As an individual motorist, it is easy to take steps to ensure that we do not end up in a situation where we are surprised by a situation that we are not prepared to handle. But what about when we cycle in these conditions? What additional steps can a cyclist take to not get rear ended by a tailgating motorist who did not see him until it was too late?

Hi Vis clothes
Rear view mirror
Signal / communication with motorists
And...

I'm going to start a new thread about it as I think it's quite an interesting topic. It's a bit buried in this thread though and I think we'll get more responses in a seperate thread.