Advocacy & Safety - Miami motorist / 12 cyclists crash

That should have been the proper heading, not "Group of bicycle riders collide with a vehicle, one severely injured".

The bikers did not collide with anything, the car ran into them.

Here is the full story:




SOUTHWEST MIAMI-DADE, Fla. (WSVN) -- Several bicyclists are injured after colliding with a vehicle.

According to Miami-Dade Fire Rescue, the bike riding club had a total of 40 members and were riding around a golf course located at 142 Avenue Southwest and 62 street, when a car pulled right in-front of them and struck them. The group of riders were unable to stop.

A total of 12 bicyclist were injured and were treated on the scene.

One bicyclist was air lifted to Jackson Memorial Hospital in critical conditions, the others were transported to near by hospitals.

Miami-Dade Police are on the scene investigating the cause of this accident.

Channel 4 covers it a little better and has a better title:

http://cbs4.com/topstories/local_story_240180313.html


According to the driver, cars were blocking the bike lane... but from the areal coverage, there are cars all along the "bike lane" .....

What makes him a cager?

Woah, there's a CSC racer on that group!! :-P

You're mistaken. You should do a little bit of homework before you post next time. The cager didn't crush twelve cyclists, the car drove into their ROW and they smacked the car.

How do you know!?!?!?! the car could have spontaneously rolled onto it's side to get a belly rub from the hand of god, because god likes SUV's, and the cyclists just so happened to be there.

The cyclists ran into the car after the inattentive cager violated their ROW. Being in the BL would not have helped anything, even if other cagers hadn't blocked it by parking there. I'm glad the injuries weren't more serious, and the police are looking at liability against the owners of the parked vehicles.

You're mistaken. You should do a little bit of homework before you post next time. The cager didn't crush twelve cyclists, the car drove into their ROW and they smacked the car. Your bias is showing...

Watch the linked video (http://www1.wsvn.com/), look at the damage to the car, listen to the LEOs on scene, etc.

The driver was at fault for pulling out but he didn't crush anyone.

the vid states that one of the cyclists was under the car / arm stuck under a tire ,etc ...

The comments in the Miami Herald are just amazing :eek::mad::(

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking_news/story/218260.html

Either way you look at this, the driver pulled out into the street without looking.

The cyclists ran into the car after the inattentive cager violated their ROW. I concur, based on my reading of the account.


Being in the BL would not have helped anything, even if other cagers hadn't blocked it by parking there. Again, I concur.


I'm glad ... the police are looking at liability against the owners of the parked vehicles. I am confused. If "being in the bike lane would not have helped anything," why are the owners of the parked vehicles liable, unless the few nearest to the intersection approach obstructed the errant motorist's visibility, thereby contributing to the incident? If that is indeed the case, then by all means slap them with contributory negligence. Otherwise, regular enforcement and awarding of fines for illegal parking should suffice.

What makes him a cager?

Apparently, the simple fact that he was in a car - something I'm sure the OP has never ever been guilty of or ever will be guilty of. It's uses such as that of the term "cager" that re-enforce in my mind just how ridiculous the use of that pathetic little term really is by those who use it.

Back on-topic though, that really is too bad about the cyclists. I hope they all recover and the driver has the book thrown at him in court - should it ever come to that.

Apparently, the simple fact that he was in a car - something I'm sure the OP has never ever been guilty of or ever will be guilty of. It's uses such as that of the term "cager" that re-enforce in my mind just how ridiculous the use of that pathetic little term really is by those who use it.

Back on-topic though, that really is too bad about the cyclists. I hope they all recover and the driver has the book thrown at him in court - should it ever come to that.

Actually the term "cager" is somewhat derogatory, usually invoked based on some idiot move, attitude or display by the "motorist" in question... in this case, the failure to yield to a peloton of cyclists who apparently had ROW and should have been quite visible by the size of the group.

I am confused. If "being in the bike lane would not have helped anything," why are the owners of the parked vehicles liable, unless the few nearest to the intersection approach obstructed the errant motorist's visibility, thereby contributing to the incident? If that is indeed the case, then by all means slap them with contributory negligence. Otherwise, regular enforcement and awarding of fines for illegal parking should suffice.

Maybe I can clear this up. The feeling that being in the bike lane would not have helped anything in this situation is mine alone, and has no bearing in law other than the cyclists being correct in occuping the motor vehicle lane since the bike lane was blocked.

The cagers illegally parking in the bike lane and blocking it is a matter for local law enforcement. The news article stated that law enforcement would be investigating for liability. If the owners of the vehicles can be slapped with some kind of legal repercussion for blocking the bike lane, it would be a very good thing.

On the other thing; cager can be a derogatory term, or it can be rather innocuous, as in anybody in a vehicle with a front, back, sides and a roof, as if they were in a cage. That's how I feel when driving. As if I'm in a cage. The way I have used it so far on this thread, it is meant to be derogatory. In the past, you may have also seen me use the term Moron Cager as a first and last name.

Another thing that crosses my mind is; how did the cager pull out in front of 12 cyclists? He most likely didn't. Likely he pulled out in front of one, or two if they were riding side by side, and those one or two were rear-ended by those following. As such, it is possible, no matter how unlikely, that the following cyclists could be charged with everything that applies when one driver rear-ends another. Likely a lot of the injuries were not caused by intial impact with the car, but subsequent impact from the rear.

This wreck is a good example of how each bicycle is a vehicle unto itself, a group of bicycles is not a single vehicle, and how riding in a pace line can be a dangerous and irresponsible practice. If I were that cager, I would go after the cyclists for damages from this angle.

If I were that cager, I would go after the cyclists for damages from this angle.

I have actually lost a case like this. I was speeding and a fellow cager pulled right out into my path. I later learned she was being honked at, so she just floored it without looking and I ran right into her. Anyway, it was deemed to be my fault due to the speed. I also thought there was something about ROW involved-like the incoming vehicle had ROW once into the road, (ie, you can't just slam into a car in your lane and say you had the ROW).

Maybe I can clear this up. The feeling that being in the bike lane would not have helped anything in this situation is mine alone, and has no bearing in law other than the cyclists being correct in occuping the motor vehicle lane since the bike lane was blocked.

The cagers illegally parking in the bike lane and blocking it is a matter for local law enforcement. The news article stated that law enforcement would be investigating for liability. If the owners of the vehicles can be slapped with some kind of legal repercussion for blocking the bike lane, it would be a very good thing.

On the other thing; cager can be a derogatory term, or it can be rather innocuous, as in anybody in a vehicle with a front, back, sides and a roof, as if they were in a cage. That's how I feel when driving. As if I'm in a cage. The way I have used it so far on this thread, it is meant to be derogatory. In the past, you may have also seen me use the term Moron Cager as a first and last name.

Another thing that crosses my mind is; how did the cager pull out in front of 12 cyclists? He most likely didn't. Likely he pulled out in front of one, or two if they were riding side by side, and those one or two were rear-ended by those following. As such, it is possible, no matter how unlikely, that the following cyclists could be charged with everything that applies when one driver rear-ends another. Likely a lot of the injuries were not caused by intial impact with the car, but subsequent impact from the rear.

This wreck is a good example of how each bicycle is a vehicle unto itself, a group of bicycles is not a single vehicle, and how riding in a pace line can be a dangerous and irresponsible practice. If I were that cager, I would go after the cyclists for damages from this angle.It's an interesting issue. Were the cyclists riding over the speed limit? At 30 MPH, it's doubtful. On the other hand, were the cyclists riding in observance of the basic speed law-- not going too fast for conditions? Were the cyclists negligently riding too close together? Were the cyclists "racing" in violation of the law? Were the cyclists keeping a proper lookout?

Exactly.

And how did this auto suddenly dart into the cyclists' path? Did it, "come out of nowhere?" Oh, the irony.

And how did this auto suddenly dart into the cyclists' path?Gas pedal.

The fact that there were dents all along the car, and not just near the front or back, hints that the driver did dart into the street from behind the row of parked cars. I see drivers do it all the time.

It's an interesting issue. Were the cyclists riding over the speed limit? At 30 MPH, it's doubtful. On the other hand, were the cyclists riding in observance of the basic speed law-- not going too fast for conditions? Were the cyclists negligently riding too close together? Were the cyclists "racing" in violation of the law? Were the cyclists keeping a proper lookout?
STOP SPECULATING. :rolleyes:

(obviously, these speculative questions are excellent and appropriate - my point was sarcastic, referencing all the flak I regularly get for speculating, including from Blue Order)

That should have been the proper heading, not "Group of bicycle riders collide with a vehicle, one severely injured".

The bikers did not f-cking collide with anything, the car ran into them.

Here is the full story:

"The group of riders were 'unable to stop?' This is similar to the thread (now in VC) about the 11 riders in Miami. The driver of the car was negligent and those riders in the front are fully entitled to legal redress. For those 'unable to stop' (that is, riding too fast for conditions) my sympathy is far more limited.

roughstuff

The article at "Floridatoday.com" describes the "bikes run into a car" incident" as occuring in an urban neighborhood. IF (and only IF) FTC is correctly describing the facts, the behavior of the cyclists was outrageous, and they have no one to blame except themselves.

A group of up to 40 cyclists are racing through the neighborhood in a pack through the neighborhood at speeds of up to 30 mph to 35 mph. According to FTC, the driver was pulling out of an apartment driveway, and the bikes ran into his car. Neighbors said that the view from the driveway might have been blocked by parked cars on the street where the apartment driveway is located.

When I ride near apartment houses, I know what I'm going to see coming into or across the street: kids, toys, moms pushing strollers, grannies on walkers, and vehicles entering and exiting driveways. And, on a street with parked cars, I know the kid, mom or grannie is most likely to pop out from behind that parked car just as I ride by.

So, the combination of residential neighborhood, apartments, and park cars means I need to ride at about 10 mph or 15 mph. At that speed, I can watch what is going on, spot the ball that rolled into the street, and know that a kid will be following that ball, and adjust according, even if that kid is just ten or fifteen feet in front of me.

At 30 mph, even if the "lead" bike had seen the car leaving the driveway, he was unlikely to be able to stop or avoid the car. And, the guys who where riding in 10th, 20th, 30th, and 40th positions probably never saw the car at all. When the first bike went down, the second bike plowed into him, and so on, and so on.

If there is something dumber than riding in a pack of 40 guys going 30 mph through an urban neighborhood, I don't think I've heard of it. Who knows how accurate the press reports actually are? But, if the press is reporting the facts correctly, these cyclists were cruisin' for a bruisin'.

The article at "Floridatoday.com" describes the "bikes run into a car" incident" as occuring in an urban neighborhood. A group of up to 40 cyclists race in a pack through the neighborhood at speeds of up to 30 mph to 35 mph. According to FTC, the driver was pulling out of an apartment driveway, and the bikes ran into his car. Neighbors said that the view from the driveway might have been blocked by parked cars on the streets.

I've never met a cyclist dumb enough to race in a pack of 40 bikes at 30 mph down an urban street that has homes and apartment houses (meaning kids, toys, moms pushing strollers, grannies on walkers, parked cars, and vehicles entering and exiting driveways.

But, the law of Karma dictates that if God ever created a cyclist that dumb, or that arrogant, or with that amount of contempt for the people who live in a neighborhood, God will find a way to correct his mistake....and send those cyclists a message they won't forget.Do you feel the same way about a person driving a car at 30mph?

Do you feel the same way about a person driving a car at 30mph?
I don't, nor should I. A car has all kinds of devices to protect the driver from harm at this speed and in this situation. A bicycle does not. That is one reason why I see cyclists as secondary road users.

roughstuff

The cyclists ran into the car after the inattentive cager violated their ROW. Being in the BL would not have helped anything, even if other cagers hadn't blocked it by parking there. I'm glad the injuries weren't more serious, and the police are looking at liability against the owners of the parked vehicles.

Indeed, that's how it seems. Alternately, had that bike lane never existed there, cyclists and motorists would have had more experience dealing with each other, and possibly the accident would not have happened.

Alternately, that little Asian guy might also not have seen an oncoming motorist, he should be counting his lucky stars that he was hit by hundreds of pounds of flesh instead of thousands of pounds of metal!!:D

I would like to see follow up on the legal issues: It seems appropriate that he was ticketed for "failing to give ROW" that is the proper and legal thing to do. However in one of the news segments, it was mentioned that the condo residents were advised by the condo association to park their cars on the cycle lane. The condo association claimed to have correspondence with the city to that effect. That could be interesting, as the city allowing that would be liable for the injured cyclists AND for the damages incurred by the motorist. If the city allowed the illegal parking then the cyclists and the motorist should sue the city. If the condo association can't prove their point then they are liable for telling residents to park illegally for the cyclists injuries/damages and the motorists damages and the association should be sued.

Cars going 30 mph? Depends on the neighborhood and driving conditions. But, if 40 cars were coming through my neighborhood, each one with his front bumper six inches behind the rear bumper of the car in front, riding in a "pack", I DO know what I would do...I buy the biggest box of roofing nails I could find, and give them a nice present.

ONE bike at 30 mph through a neighborhood with driveways, kids playing, parked cars, and other risks has a moderate level of risk to the cyclist, and to the kid or old lady he runs over. But, a pack of 40 riders multiples the risk by far more than 40 times, because (as happened here), when the lead rider screws up, 39 riders are going to being piling on top of him.

The ultimate test will be what a Florida jury thinks. My bet: a Florida jury, if the facts are what FTC has printed are true, will not give any of these cyclists a single dime.

A cyclist has two choices: ride like an arrogant jerk with the IQ of a turkey, , and hope a jury will feel sorry for you when you plow into a motor vehicle. Or, ride like an intelligent, thoughtful person, who cares deeply about the safety and well-being of the people who live in the neighborhoods we are riding though...never have a collision and never worry about what a jury thinks.

"The group of riders were 'unable to stop?' This is similar to the thread (now in VC) about the 11 riders in Miami. The driver of the car was negligent and those riders in the front are fully entitled to legal redress. For those 'unable to stop' (that is, riding too fast for conditions) my sympathy is far more limited

I agree 100% with the first aspect of your post, the second point leaves me questioning. I can see your point. If tailgaiting for cars is illegal, then tailgaiting for cyclists is also illegal and irresponsible. If that is our stance, then most group rides are behaving illegally because by definition, most group rides keep relatively close together, just as jogging/walking groups do.

I guess that's why personally, I've always loathed group events other than in the context of racing. It was my survival instincts kicking in, without me even noticing it... Hmm, I think you're right to an extent.

Howeber, we must be cautious to compare the situation to motorists to determine which cyclists to vouch for and which cyclists to leave hanging dry.

Let us compare this situation for a group of cars. Compare a group of cars tailgating at the posted speed limit to a group of cars NOT TAILGATING at the posted speed limit, how many cars would have crashed in either situation??????? and how many could have veered clear. And how many feet away from the collision was the first vehicle able to veer clear??

"presumed" limit. ...
If there is something dumber than riding in a pack of 40 guys going 30 mph through an urban neighborhood, I don't think I've heard of it.

I am partially in agreement with you. However, I think the speed limit is not the issue. At any given posted speed limit, bicycles are more maneuverable than a car. However if you view this situation in the tailgating perspective, then it would be hard to find anyone to argue with it.

The issue of tailgating among cyclists doesn't often get spoken about, but it is a practice best kept for experienced riders in racing contexts.

Tailgaiting cyclists, at any speed, are inviting trouble.

A residential street with kids playing, many driveways, parked cars, etc. should have a 25mph SL.

This street (in pictures I've seen in other threads) looks more like a collector in layout. Normally it doesn't have parked cars and 30mph SL is reasonable. What may not be reasonable/wise is the psudo-collector design of the road and laying out residential areas like this.

Al

There is a detailed video of the TV news coverage available on the web:

http://video.nbc6.net/player/?id=149887#videoid=149887

Watching the video, which shows parked cars around the driveway at the apartment complex makes it clear: this was the WORST place in the USA for 40 guys to race as a pack at 30 mph through a residential neighborhood during afternoon rush hour. The anger of a lady who lives in the neighborhood about the behavior of these cycling jerks was very evident.

Cars going 30 mph? Depends on the neighborhood and driving conditions. But, if 40 cars were coming through my neighborhood, each one with his front bumper six inches behind the rear bumper of the car in front, riding in a "pack", I DO know what I would do...I buy the biggest box of roofing nails I could find, and give them a nice present.

ONE bike at 30 mph through a neighborhood with driveways, kids playing, parked cars, and other risks has a moderate level of risk to the cyclist, and to the kid or old lady he runs over. But, a pack of 40 riders multiples the risk by far more than 40 times, because (as happened here), when the lead rider screws up, 39 riders are going to being piling on top of him.

The ultimate test will be what a Florida jury thinks. My bet: a Florida jury, if the facts are what FTC has printed are true, will not give any of these cyclists a single dime.

A cyclist has two choices: ride like an arrogant jerk with the IQ of a turkey, , and hope a jury will feel sorry for you when you plow into a motor vehicle. Or, ride like an intelligent, thoughtful person, who cares deeply about the safety and well-being of the people who live in the neighborhoods we are riding though...never have a collision and never worry about what a jury thinks.Here is a photograph of the damage done to the car:
http://www.nbc6.net/slideshow/14000780/detail.htmlindex.html?currentSlide=1&taf=ami

If the collision had involved another car, instead of a group of cyclists, do you think there would have been
(a) more, or
(b) less
damage done to the Suburu?

... damage done to the car:If the collision had involved another car, instead of a group of cyclists, do you think there would have been
(a) more, or
(b) less
damage done to the Suburu?

Absolutely more! Which is why I mentioned earlier the little Asian guy should be counting his blessings. However, cyclists FOR OUR OWN SAFETY, in addition to other's safety, SHOULD NOT TAILGATE or ride in groups on city streets outside race context unless it's a group so slow and so large as to be unmistakable.

Here is a photograph of the damage done to the car:
http://www.nbc6.net/slideshow/14000780/detail.htmlindex.html?currentSlide=1&taf=ami

If the collision had involved another car, instead of a group of cyclists, do you think there would have been
(a) more, or
(b) less
damage done to the Suburu?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDwHkN7KGfQ

The damage to the Subaru Forester would have been very similar to the damage in that test, but it probably wouldn't have been pushed as far because ofthe road surface involved. I believe that they do those tests at 30 or 35mph.

As has been said earlier, tailgating for cyclists is stupid just like it is for motorists. Everyone has a reaction time that must be factored into braking distance, and at that speed, the riders in that group may not have even had time to hit the brakes. Even if they did, the braking distance at 30+ mph is significant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDwHkN7KGfQ

The damage to the Subaru Forester would have been very similar to the damage in that test, but it probably wouldn't have been pushed as far because ofthe road surface involved. I believe that they do those tests at 30 or 35mph.

As has been said earlier, tailgating for cyclists is stupid just like it is for motorists. Everyone has a reaction time that must be factored into braking distance, and at that speed, the riders in that group may not have even had time to hit the brakes. Even if they did, the braking distance at 30+ mph is significant.

Indeed, which still leaves us with the question, how many of the 12 cyclists would have been spared had they NOT been tailgating, 6? 3? Of course this is speculation, which is why I asked earlier: AT POSTED SPEED LIMIT what distance is considered safe for in that location for a car, then we can apply that as a starting point for assessing which cyclists would have been spared...

Which leaves me with the following thought, the first few of the 12 cyclists certainly deserve restitution from either the city or the condo administration as one of these was clearly at fault for encouraging BL parking and obstructing visibility, however it is unclear as to how many of the 12 cyclists can claim the same wrongdoing...

Generally speaking, cars are supposed to stay back at least one car length for every 10 mph. A car length is usually considered to be 15ft, so at 30mph, you'd be 3-4 car lengths back, 45-60ft. Anything closer than that *could* be considered tailgaiting.

edit: as for the compensation, I'd be curious to see if they're all prohibited from seeking damages due to "racing" or something.

Indeed, which still leaves us with the question, how many of the 12 cyclists would have been spared had they NOT been tailgating, 6? 3?

No speculation is needed. By definition, had they not been tailgating each other, 11 of the 12 would have been spared as they all would have been allowing enough room ahead of themselves to not collide into the first person.

I will guess that the court will find the driver guilty of pulling out in the way of the first bicyclist, and the rest of the cyclists guilty of not allowing sufficient room in front and thus at fault for hitting whoever they hit, possibly even the motorist.

What if they were riding two abreast (legal in FL) What if three or four?
Al

I will guess that the court will find the driver guilty of pulling out in the way of the first bicyclist, and the rest of the cyclists guilty of not allowing sufficient room in front and thus at fault for hitting whoever they hit, possibly even the motorist.Can you cite precedent?

No speculation is needed. By definition, had they not been tailgating each other, 11 of the 12 would have been spared as they all would have been allowing enough room ahead of themselves to not collide into the first person.

I will guess that the court will find the driver guilty of pulling out in the way of the first bicyclist, and the rest of the cyclists guilty of not allowing sufficient room in front and thus at fault for hitting whoever they hit, possibly even the motorist.

Ahem, yes to a point, however it's my impression that 2-4 cyclists hit the car independently, if you'll excuse my lack of legal speak, as the car was banged up from front to rear bumpers. So my assessment would be that the 2-4 cyclists who initially hit the car and not another cyclist's rear were in fact NOT TAILGATING but as someone else aptly put it, riding legally abreast. Had the car only pulled out a few inches, only the rider closest to the curb would have collided, but the car pulled out all the way, and hence impeded several cyclists wide. In most of Canada, cycling single file is the law. However I think that 2-3 abreast as in most states is not inherently ill advised. Myself, I rarely feel comfortable cycling abreast because I want the most space possible next to me just in case some blubbering idiot attempts to side swipe me (and that may include my cycling friend!) and then "maybe" I'll have time to veer from my course

In FL (as far I can figure out) tailgating is only illegal for motor vehicles:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=too+closely&URL=CH0316/Sec0895.HTM

Also 'racing' is only applicable to motor vehicles:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=drag+race&URL=CH0316/Sec191.HTM

This is not the case in all US states.

Al

I just checked the Florida statutes:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0316/ch0316.htm

Section 316.0895 (Following too closely) applies strictly to motor vehicles, hence not bicycles. It appears that pacelining is not illegal. General provisions in the chapter refer to "vehicles" (not "motor vehicles").

Regardless, the idea that one would forfeit right-of-way by following too closely is kooky.

Noisebeam you scooped me!

Sad accident. But to all those people using the name "cager", but just go to the parking lot at the beginning of any organized bike ride and you'll see SUV's everywhere with bike racks on them. It's like going to these expensive nature stores and seeing Lincoln Navigators everywhere.

The ultimate hypocrisy.

I just checked the Florida statutes:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0316/ch0316.htm

Section 316.0895 (Following too closely) applies strictly to motor vehicles, hence not bicycles. It appears that pacelining is not illegal. General provisions in the chapter refer to "vehicles" (not "motor vehicles").

Regardless, the idea that one would forfeit right-of-way by following too closely is kooky.

Well that's good to know. However if you all ever come visit the Yukon (and I suspect anywhere in Canada) don't pack ride as tailgating according to the Yukon Motor Vehicle Act http://www.gov.yk.ca/legislation/acts/move.pdf prohibits "vehicles" from following each other too closely, and "vehicles" includes bicycles. Cycling single file is also law here. In the driver's handbook, 3 seconds between vehicles is the suggested time :)

Visitors to Canada should remember, when in doubt on a law, expect the most repressive legislation :rolleyes:

Yeah for Florida, can't wait to get back!

Sad accident. But to all those people using the name "cager", but just go to the parking lot at the beginning of any organized bike ride and you'll see SUV's everywhere with bike racks on them. It's like going to these expensive nature stores and seeing Lincoln Navigators everywhere.

The ultimate hypocrisy.

+1

STOP SPECULATING. :rolleyes:

(obviously, these speculative questions are excellent and appropriate - my point was sarcastic, referencing all the flak I regularly get for speculating, including from Blue Order)

There's a world of difference between asking 'Were they riding to close to the kerb?' and saying 'It's likely they were riding too close to the kerb.'

+1
Not all of us who enjoy organized rides drive to the start and in my casual observation those who use the term 'cager' tend to be more of the solo-commuter type vs. organized ride type.

I personally try to avoid the term, although hypocritically I have become fond of JAM.

Al

Thanks for pointing out that info, Noisebeam and Flargle. +1:)

Honestly, I had never noticed that.

As for the term cager, I will be a cager today. Time and distance constraints preclude riding, which I did yesterday. Nothing hypocritical about it.

There are degrees of cagerness. Most motorists are full blown cagers who never ride. Some, like myself, are sometimes cagers. Only being a cager when a bike is impractical. A cager is not like the few road users who can accurately be described as Moron Cager or JAM. Just as bad is the JAC or JAB.

Sad accident. But to all those people using the name "cager", but just go to the parking lot at the beginning of any organized bike ride and you'll see SUV's everywhere with bike racks on them. It's like going to these expensive nature stores and seeing Lincoln Navigators everywhere.

The ultimate hypocrisy.There is a big divide between cyclists who view bikes as a form of transportation, and those who view bikes as a form of athletics. I wish more roadies took a wider view of things.

On the other hand, there are plenty of roadies who do.

My pet peeve is the SUVs named after national parks and sites, like the Denali and Tahoe. Irony in car form.

Thanks for pointing out that info, Noisebeam and Flargle. +1:)

Honestly, I had never noticed that.

As for the term cager, I will be a cager today. Time and distance constraints preclude riding, which I did yesterday. Nothing hypocritical about it.

There are degrees of cagerness. Most motorists are full blown cagers who never ride. Some, like myself, are sometimes cagers. Only being a cager when a bike is impractical. A cager is not like the few road users who can accurately be described as Moron Cager or JAM. Just as bad is the JAC or JAB.

Are you a cager or a motorist? Do you signal your intentions while driving? Are you aware of your surroundings? Do you merge well and allow others to merge? Do you try to drive the speed limit vice lead foot it? Do you share the road, or hog it? Do you "drive friendly?"

To me, those are those questions somewhat define charateristics of a good motorist, and one who is not a "cager." To me a cager tends to violate one or most of the above questions, and particularly doesn't see or envision cyclists as legitimate road users; Moron cagers take it to the next level, and JAMs are pretty self explanatory, as are JABs.

I just checked the Florida statutes:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0316/ch0316.htm

Section 316.0895 (Following too closely) applies strictly to motor vehicles, hence not bicycles. It appears that pacelining is not illegal. General provisions in the chapter refer to "vehicles" (not "motor vehicles").

Regardless, the idea that one would forfeit right-of-way by following too closely is kooky.

I'm no lawyer, but I've got a feeling that this is a case where absence of a law isn't going to necessarily help - recall this is a civil matter. I can't claim that insanely dangerous things done by very few people are legal, simply because the legislature didn't spend time to specifically make it illegal.

Don't know if FL is a shared-fault state (and I'm too lazy to look it up), but I imagine the potential defendant would have a reasonable case to argue that the 11 who ran into the first share some fault by not maintaining a safe distance.

As a personal opinion, I don't think that 40-man pacelines have a place in highly trafficked roads, simply because the margin for error is so low. If this gets that far, I imagine the jury will have their own opportunity to decide. Since there will be probably 12 non-cyclists, I can guess how that will work out.

A lot of posts seem obsessed with "who broke the law" and "which laws were broken" and NOT with: how could this have been prevented?.

There is no law in Florida, or any other state, that REQUIRES that cyclists ride in ways that are stupid, arrogant, or disrespectful to the people living in the neighborhoods we ride through.

The street where I live has lots of kids, doing the stuff kids do. They play in the street, chase toys into the street, roll their trikes into the street. Not smart stuff or safe stuff, but the sorts of things kids do.

So, if 40 guys decided to race as a pack at 30 mph down my street, I'd be greatly upset. And, if someone pulled out of their driveway, and these 40 @ssholes plowed into that car, I'd be high-fiving the driver...

Regardless of our "legal rights", cyclists have an obligation to always ride in a way that shows due consideration for the safety and well-being of other folks. And, when we don't do that, we find out the first law of karma is: payback is a witch.

So, if 40 guys decided to race as a pack at 30 mph down my street, I'd be greatly upset. And, if someone pulled out of their driveway, and these 40 @ssholes plowed into that car, I'd be high-fiving the driver...True colors revealed.

Alan, you conveniently chose not to answer my question. It's a simple multiple-choice.

Here is a photograph of the damage done to the car in Miami:
http://www.nbc6.net/slideshow/14000780/detail.htmlindex.html?currentSlide=1&taf=ami
If the collision had involved another car, instead of a group of cyclists, do you think there would have been
(a) more, or
(b) less
damage done to the Suburu?