11 bicyclists crash into car

[ghettocruiser]

Given that only 17 of the 30 crashed, that's evidence (not proof) that they were in one or two lines, not bunched up taking up the whole road.

So your theory is that a car pulls out in front a single line of bikes, and they run into it one after the other until rider #18 finally gets stopped.

If this makes sense to you, I'm glad I don't ride with your club.

[Helmet Head]

So your theory is that a car pulls out in front a single line of bikes, and they run into it one after the other until rider #18 finally gets stopped.

If this makes sense to you, I'm glad I don't ride with your club.
If they're going 30 mph, that can easily happen.
More likely they were in roughly 2 lines, so the first nine guys in each line crashed.

[Helmet Head]

Do not blame me for your reading comprehension challenges and your bias towards making assumptions that only jive with your warped worldview.



You are hilarious.

Even if he rolled a few feet forward after being hit by the cyclists, that still puts them in the center, or the right side, of the roadway.

It's time to buy you a clue.

Watch the video that is linked on this page:

http://www1.wsvn.com/news/articles/local/MI59638/

You might want to pause it at 1:15.

Good luck. You're going to need it!



That the driver swung into the left turn lane.

I can't view the video for some reason. You're going to have to explain it in words.

[Helmet Head]

That the driver swung into the left turn lane.
I never said that's what YOU wrote. I quoted to guys who mentioned the basically the same thing using slightly different wording, and I inquired as to why you guys that it was significant, using some wording from each. Look at the post again. I'll color code it for you. :rolleyes:

[-=£em in Pa=-]

I cant see the Vid either.....but this is telling :

"If that van's parked there, it's hard to get out and see if anybody's coming," said Roxanne Costello. Although, after she though about it for a second, she did think it would be hard for a driver to miss the mass of bicycles riding down the street. "But apparently it was 50 bikes, anybody could have seen it"

[Helmet Head]

No, we didn't write the same thing with different wording, despite the fact that you processed it that way.

You are responsible for your lack of comprehension Serge.
I didn't say you wrote the same thing. I said you basically mentioned the same thing.

Here is the original post of mine, with both of your quotes, color coded for you this time.


Here's just one piece of evidence Serge:

"Additionally, the car that pulled in front of the riders was in the middle of the street, overlapping the left turn lane."


Did you miss the part about the car swinging into the left turn lane?

Why do you guys think that there is something significant about the guy pulling out or swinging into the left turn lane?

[Helmet Head]

His car was overlapping the left turn lane, as in he was perpendicular to the path of travel of the cyclists with the front of his overlapping the the left turn lane, and the cyclists struck the car when it was on the left side of the lane.

p.s. The driver's view of the roadway was obscured by a large van as well.
So?

Just because the front of his car was partially encroaching in the left turn lane doesn't mean he wasn't blocking most if not all of the lane, especially considering the parked cars. Also, he is likely to have kept moving at least a few feet after initial impact.

[Helmet Head]

Peter, if you think bike monkey was trying to make a significantly different point with his "swing into the left lane" language from the one you made with your "pulled in front of the riders was in the middle of the street, overlapping the left turn lane" language, you're going to have to spell out what that was.

[banerjek]

Imagine you're driving down the freeway at 4am in the rightmost lane, going 65 mph. All of a sudden, a drunk comes up an exit lane going the wrong way, headed right toward you. You have a headon collision and die.

Now imagine that a bunch of people, instead of blaming the drunk driver, blame YOU, saying things like, "well, it was 4am - you should have been on the lookout for drunks" or "gee, if you had been in the left hand lane, you would have seen him on time."

Ridiculous. The drunk is at fault. End of story.

Why is this any different? Here is a guy who darts out right into the middle of the street without even looking.....
Who is at fault is not important. The question is what you should do. Regardless of what people should do, the reality is they pull in front of cyclists all the time even if they see them. It is so common that I presume that everybody is going to do it. Paranoid? Absolutely. But it's an attitude that's saved my bacon many times. I do not like riding in town specifically because the density of idiot drivers is so high (there are also plenty of idiot cyclists to watch out for).

Even if a bike lane is provided, I tend to take the lane. I have found that if you are in the traffic lane, motorists are less likely to pull right in front of you or perform a right hook. However, it still happens often enough that you need to be ready for it at all times.

Your ability to impact motorist behavior is minimal, and you should do what you can. In the meantime, be ready for what you know is what can happen. With regards to your drunk going down the exit ramp, I would think you should be able to spot something is wrong because if you're still on the freeway, you have time to bail (unless you don't watch very far ahead), and if you are on the ramp itself, you can probably get away from bailing on the inside of the curve.

Having said all that, some accidents are unavoidable. However, it is how you react when things/people aren't as they shouldn't be when your skills are really tested.

What do you think would have happened to this peloton if a dog ran out in the street or kids suddenly darted out? Never saw that happen before......

[cudak888]

(IMAGE from Channel 7 news)

Pete, how did you get the screengrab? I tried over here with no results.

-Kurt

[joejack951]

cudak888- I don't think it's possible to grab a frame from an asx stream playing in Windows Media Player. I did it the ole fashioned way. Paused the video and used a camera for a true screen shot.

Couldn't you just do a crtl-print screen or crtl-alt-print screen?

[noisebeam]

cudak888- I don't think it's possible to grab a frame from an asx stream playing in Windows Media Player. I did it the ole fashioned way. Paused the video and used a camera for a true screen shot.

Couldn't you also (in PC world) pause video, do a "Ctrl-Print Screen" and paste into photo editor, crop out non-video and save .jpg?

edit: JJ beat me to it. Now I wonder why it can't be done

edit2: I tried that method and that was strange, it leaves the video frozen in one place on screen (after paste) and the screen capture part can be moved around it, with a 'window' where the video was, that shows the video if lined up with it. I learn everyday on BF!

Al

[sygyzy]

How embarrassing it must be for you Floridians.

[What]

How embarrassing it must be for you Floridians.

"Come on down, the water's fine!"

[Blue Order]

Would you argue the facts as given and not the facts that you imagine.That'll be the day....

[Mr. Underbridge]

Everything about this entire thread is sickening. The event is sickening. The soapboxing based on complete speculation is sickening. The standard for handing out licenses in Florida is sickening.

Think I'll go barf.

[Allister]

If this street really has a bike lane, then it's likely the cyclists were drawn to ride in it or near it - too far to the right - especially given their speed and the absence of other fast traffic.

Making as assumption about the cyclist's lane position: CHECK

The driver may have looked left and really didn't see them due to the obstructing parked cars if the cyclists were riding too far to their right, which almost all cyclists do.

Assumption that if a driver doesn't see a cyclist, it must be the cyclist's fault: CHECK

Assumption that said cyclists don't know as much about lane positioning as Serge: CHECK

Yep, this has all the hallmarks of yet another HH thread-jacking. Goodonya, sh*tforbrains.

[Blue Order]

Executive Summary:If ..then it's likely...especially...may have ...

[Blue Order]

More executive summary:There is no guarantee...if...quite unlikely (I'm assuming...Given...if it's true...if...then they are probably...Given...they are likely...I might be wrong, of course...I'm only talking in terms of how things are likely to have happened.... IF

[Blue Order]

And another Executive Summary:IF...then I think it's reasonable to presume...if...Why is this so difficult to accept?

[Helmet Head]

What is the matter with you people? You act like there is something obviously wrong or inappropriate with making assumptions and talking about the hypothetical situations based on those assumptions being true, and the likelihood of those assumptions actually being true.

I got news for you. None of us were there. We don't know exactly what happened. We will never know exactly what happened. Why does that matter? Hypothesizing about what might have happened, based on what apparently happened, or what was most reasonably likely to have happened, is as good as it gets for a jury. It's certainly as good as it gets here.

[Helmet Head]

Making as assumption about the cyclist's lane position: CHECK
Do you understand what an assumption is?

Consider this statement:

If a nuclear device exploded right next to you, then you are probably dead.

Do you agree that's a true statement? Is it based on the assumption that you are dead? No. Is it based on the assumption that a nuclear device exploded? No. Yet it's still true.

Now consider my statement:
If this street really has a bike lane, then it's likely the cyclists were drawn to ride in it or near it - too far to the right - especially given their speed and the absence of other fast traffic.

Do you agree that's a true statement? Whether it's true or not, Is it's veracity based on any assumption about the cyclists' actual lane position? No.



Assumption that if a driver doesn't see a cyclist, it must be the cyclist's fault: CHECK

Assumption that said cyclists don't know as much about lane positioning as Serge: CHECK

Yep, this has all the hallmarks of yet another HH thread-jacking. Goodonya, sh*tforbrains.
Nothing I said was predicated on any of these assumptions.

Does someone really have to be an engineer, or schooled in logic and reason in some manner, to understand the way I think and write?

[Blue Order]

Do you understand what an assumption is?

Consider this statement:

If a nuclear device exploded right next to you, then you are probably dead.

Do you agree that's a true statement? Is it based on the assumption that you are dead? No. Is it based on the assumption that a nuclear device exploded? No. Yet it's still true.

Now consider my statement:
If this street really has a bike lane, then it's likely the cyclists were drawn to ride in it or near it - too far to the right - especially given their speed and the absence of other fast traffic.

Do you agree that's a true statement? Whether it's true or not, Is it's veracity based on any assumption about the cyclists' actual lane position? No.Oh, I see how this works.

IF unicorns were prancing in the bike lane, then that might explain why the driver didn't see the cyclists.


Does someone really have to be an engineer, or schooled in logic and reason in some manner, to understand the way I think and write?Classic Helmet Head! :lol:

[Helmet Head]

Oh, I see how this works.

IF unicorns were prancing in the bike lane, then that might explain why the driver didn't see the cyclists.

Now you're catching on. Of course the appropriate discussion is about the likelihood of the condition in question, in this case: unicorns were prancing in the bike lane.

You see, I agree that IF unicorns were prancing in the bike lane, then that might explain why the driver didn't see the cyclists.

I am quite certain, however, that unicorns were not prancing in the bike lane.


That is how you analyze these types of statements. You don't dismiss them out of hand.

[Allister]

Now consider my statement:
If this street really has a bike lane, then it's likely the cyclists were drawn to ride in it or near it - too far to the right - especially given their speed and the absence of other fast traffic.

Do you agree that's a true statement?

No. It's speculation.

Whether it's true or not, Is it's veracity based on any assumption about the cyclists' actual lane position? No.

For any lessons to be gained from this incident, then knowing the cyclist's actual lane position would be useful. Until you know all the facts, anything you say based on what is 'likely' is worthless.

Does someone really have to be an engineer, or schooled in logic and reason in some manner, to understand the way I think and write?

I doubt it. You obviously aren't.

[Bushman]

Not sure if you saw my post on the bottom of Page #2 (post #50), but if you have a look at the 7-News video, you'll see that some @$$ parked a Ford Econoline two spaces down from the exit of that community, creating a blind spot. As I said in my earlier post, in typical Miami fashion, the driver of the Ford Escape probably decided to wing it blindly, and hope nothing (cyclist or otherwise) was coming.

Take care,

-Kurt

FINALLY someone said it. For those who dont know, or are ignorant, a Ford Econoline van creates a 6' x 6'x 12' rectangle of blind spot, that one cannot see around UNLESS they pull their vehicle out further. What happens when you pull out in a vehicle? the 5 or 6' of engine bay, front bumper etc has to nose out first BEFORE the drivers side window clears the blind spot. It is ONLY when the drivers side window is fully out of the blind spot that the Driver can see finally.......if you look at where the cyclists hit the SUV it is in the FRONT LEFT QUARTER PANEL - in FRONT of the driver.....are you seeing what i'm getting at here? the driver would have had a VERY difficult time of seeing THRU a solid metal object (Ford van)

[Helmet Head]

For any lessons to be gained from this incident, then knowing the cyclist's actual lane position would be useful. Until you know all the facts, anything you say based on what is 'likely' is worthless.

What?

Do you recognize that very useful things can be learned from totally hypothetical situations? Of course, the more realistic the assumptions in the hypothetical situation, the more likely it will be useful, but the point is that nothing has to be based on actual facts in order to learn something.

We can for example talk about a situation in which a cyclist is riding in a door zone, when suddenly a child in the back seat of the car, totally out of the view of the cyclist, unexpectedly opens the rear driver's side door. Would whether this actually ever happened even matter relative to the learning value of it? More to the point, am I talking about an incident that I was actually involved with, or did I just make it up? Does it matter with respect to the lesson it brings? Of course not.

So then why in this case does knowing the cyclists' actual lane position necessary in order "for any lessons to be gained from this incident". What's so special about this incident that it cannot be leveraged to create a realistic hypothetical situation and analyzed and learned from?

Why must we know all the facts for anything we say based on what is 'likely' to be anything other than worthless?

After all, on this forum we're not the police or insurance investigators. We have no interest in determining what really truly actually happened. This is a safety and advocacy forum. If we can learn about safety from this, even if it's from a hypothetical loosely constructed based on what is likely to have happened here, where's the harm in that? How is that any less useful than using pure hypotheticals?

I'm genuinely baffled by the resistance to speculation and hypothesizing on this forum. It's quite common, too.

[Allister]

Do you recognize that very useful things can be learned from totally hypothetical situations? Of course, the more realistic the assumptions in the hypothetical situation, the more likely it will be useful, but the point is that nothing has to be based on actual facts in order to learn something..

True enough. But, if you want to construct hypothetical situations, start another thread for it. If you want to comment on an actual collision that happened, it's better to stick with the facts at hand.

[Allister]

I'm genuinely baffled

No argument there.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Does someone really have to be an engineer, or schooled in logic and reason in some manner, to understand the way I think and write?
No, but being a gullible fool would help explain why anyone would take seriously another post of HH brand "logic and reason."

[Blue Order]

True enough. But, if you want to construct hypothetical situations, start another thread for it. If you want to comment on an actual collision that happened, it's better to stick with the facts at hand.+1

[syn0n]

FINALLY someone said it. For those who dont know, or are ignorant, a Ford Econoline van creates a 6' x 6'x 12' rectangle of blind spot, that one cannot see around UNLESS they pull their vehicle out further. What happens when you pull out in a vehicle? the 5 or 6' of engine bay, front bumper etc has to nose out first BEFORE the drivers side window clears the blind spot. It is ONLY when the drivers side window is fully out of the blind spot that the Driver can see finally.......if you look at where the cyclists hit the SUV it is in the FRONT LEFT QUARTER PANEL - in FRONT of the driver.....are you seeing what i'm getting at here? the driver would have had a VERY difficult time of seeing THRU a solid metal object (Ford van)
This. It also appeared to be parked very close to the car in front of it, leaving little gap for a last minute warning to stop.

While the driver clearly violated the right of way, I think it's a bit unfair to go labeling him or her as a "clueless idiot", etc. Unless one would say the same thing about a cyclist pulling out blindly in front of a car at that same intersection, it shouldn't be said of the driver, because of the conditions present. Accidents happen and they're not always "clueless" behavior on one party's behalf. Hopefully these guys will recover quickly though. Multiple bike collisions always look incredibly brutal.

[Dchiefransom]

Got it.

Here's the scene of the crash. The riders were traveling from right to left and the bike "path" or lane was full of cars.

http://paradigmhosting.net/images/miami.jpg

Nice picture. This is just "eyeballing", but even without cars in the bike lane, it looks like a driver might have to pull out far enough to block the bike lane to see to the left, with that hedge there.

[Chaco]

When you're pulling into a street, and your vision is obstructed, the following may happen:
a) if you're a careful driver, you inch out very gradually until you can see what's going on. This gives people coming down the street time to react.
b) if you're a clueless idiot, you burst out into the middle of the lane, and hope that no one's there.

Look at the video. It was the back of his car that was all beat up, not just the front. That tells you something right there.

[Blue Order]

You're much more of a fool than I originally thought if you think that hypothesizing is as good as it gets for a jury.

Let's expand your jury analogy a bit Serge.

People sitting on a jury should ideally be open-minded and without judgment until they have all of the evidence. That's when they begin deliberations after all.

You, on the other hand, immediately begin going on about your pet theory about lane positioning before you have looked at all of the available evidence*. Looking at the evidence is quite different than hypothesizing after all.

The folks that have looked at the evidence, even if they could overcome your typically boorish behavior of assuming that "it's likely" that the cyclists were riding too close to the right, know that you're an idiot based upon the evidence that they have seen (that you have either willfully ignored, are too lazy to review, or too technologically challenged to review) and the fact that you're arguing about your hypothesis, which flies in the face of said evidence.

Rather than pause and gather facts, you start yet another crusade based upon your assumption just because the roadway has a bike lane, the cyclists involved in the accident were likely to be drawn to the lane, or that side of the road.

I pity the poor soul who finds you sitting in their jury box.

*eyewitness accounts, police statements, photos, and videoTo take the jury analogy a bit further, it would never be appropriate for a jury to speculate, or to manufacture hypotheses, in deliberations.

The jury is presented with the evidence for a conviction, and with the defense against that evidence. That is all the jury is permitted to consider. A jury is permitted to decide which evidence and testimony it finds more convincing. But what HH does-- manufacture a hypothesis of what "might have happened," based on "logic and reason"-- would be grounds for a mistrial if he ever tried that in deliberations.

[cudak888]

When you're pulling into a street, and your vision is obstructed, the following may happen:
a) if you're a careful driver, you inch out very gradually until you can see what's going on. This gives people coming down the street time to react.
b) if you're a clueless idiot, you burst out into the middle of the lane, and hope that no one's there.

Look at the video. It was the back of his car that was all beat up, not just the front. That tells you something right there.

You forgot the following:

c) If you are from Miami, only "B" applies. True, I am generalizing, but for the most part, this is the case locally (I should know, I live here). Most people in this town will chance it and floor it in the case of a blind spot as opposed to inching out carefully.

-Kurt

[Chaco]

LOL, I guess I'm glad I don't have to ride in Miami. When I was in L.A. last weekend, it looked like that there, too. Scary place to be a bike rider. I'd rather be on the bike lane on Carlsbad's La Costa Ave., with cars whizzing by me at 65 mph, than trying to deal with the streets I saw in L.A.

[cudak888]

LOL, I guess I'm glad I don't have to ride in Miami. When I was in L.A. last weekend, it looked like that there, too. Scary place to be a bike rider. I'd rather be on the bike lane on Carlsbad's La Costa Ave., with cars whizzing by me at 65 mph, than trying to deal with the streets I saw in L.A.

Eh, I'm used to it now. Trick is to:

#1: Expect pedestrians or other moving objects in front, aside, or to the back of you to do anything physically possible, and have an exit strategy for it.
#2: Expect motorists to make any physically possible moves with their vehicles, and try to get the 'feel' for what they might do next by watching their movements, even as small as a few degrees off from the centerline of the lane (it might be 20 degrees off - i.e.: in your face - two seconds later)
#3: Be aware of vehicle, ped., and potential moving objects within 200 feet.
#4: Have an exit strategy for EVERY situation that can be conjured up for that happening.
#5: I do not ride where there is no possible exit strategy in an emergency (rare, but there are examples - usually streets with bike lanes designed by a drunk)
#6: Trust your hunch. It usually is right. I expected someone to make a left turn into me on the wrong side of a wye street once, and was right. Had I not suspected him of possibly doing such a maniacal move, I would have been steamroller'ed.

-Kurt

[genec]

Eh, I'm used to it now. Trick is to:

#1: Expect pedestrians or other moving objects in front, aside, or to the back of you to do anything physically possible, and have an exit strategy for it.
#2: Expect motorists to make any physically possible moves with their vehicles, and try to get the 'feel' for what they might do next by watching their movements, even as small as a few degrees off from the centerline of the lane (it might be 20 degrees off - i.e.: in your face - two seconds later)
#3: Be aware of vehicle, ped., and potential moving objects within 200 feet.
#4: Have an exit strategy for EVERY situation that can be conjured up for that happening.
#5: I do not ride where there is no possible exit strategy in an emergency (rare, but there are examples - usually streets with bike lanes designed by a drunk)
#6: Trust your hunch. It usually is right. I expected someone to make a left turn into me on the wrong side of a wye street once, and was right. Had I not suspected him of possibly doing such a maniacal move, I would have been steamroller'ed.

-Kurt

All of which leads to a cyclist having to be so cautious as to take some of the fun out of cycling itself... where one can't just ride balls to the wall from light to light and pursue the much enjoyed speed that JF so fondly mentions in his ADC paper. You describe a situation wherein the cyclist is all but tiptoeing down the road like a mouse waiting for a cat to pounce.

[randya]

popular thread I see

[cudak888]

All of which leads to a cyclist having to being so cautious as to take some of the fun out of cycling itself... where one can't just ride balls to the wall from light to light and pursue the much enjoyed speed that JF so fondly mentions in his ADC paper. You describe a situation wherein the cyclist is all but tiptoeing down the road like a mouse waiting for a cat to pounce.

Well, truth be told, I've found that so long as I keep everything under watch in a calm manner, I can still enjoy it. In fact, I've had times where I've retained that bliss right through a semi-close call - mainly as I was expecting it. I avoided it with no problem - water under the bridge, just another day riding.

The only thing that pisses me off are folks such as my example #6 in my previous post - a mind-numbingly stupid decision on the part of another (may that be cyclist, motorist, ped, dog, God - take your pick) to the point of disbelief.

I made a little animation of that incident. Not a great animation (timing is off, and it looks more as if he began his sharp turn after I had passed - in the actual happening, it was nearly nose-to-nose), but serves the purpose. I added some of the usual cyclist humor to it:

http://www.jaysmarine.com/BIKE_animation.gif

Take care,

-Kurt

[What]

All of which leads to a cyclist having to being so cautious as to take some of the fun out of cycling itself... where one can't just ride balls to the wall from light to light and pursue the much enjoyed speed that JF so fondly mentions in his ADC paper. You describe a situation wherein the cyclist is all but tiptoeing down the road like a mouse waiting for a cat to pounce.

I commute and train in Miami. I ride my arse off most of the time, even on the commute. They're are situations that arise when common sense tells you to be extra defensive, or take an alternate route. At the end of the day, I have a blast. But then again, I'm not a very timid person, either.

You just have to ride like everyone out there is trying to kill you.

[genec]

I commute and train in Miami. I ride my arse off most of the time, even on the commute. They're are situations that arise when common sense tells you to be extra defensive, or take an alternate route. At the end of the day, I have a blast. But then again, I'm not a very timid person, either.

You just have to ride like everyone out there is trying to kill you.


Well that is exactly my point. I commute in what I call "casper mode." I assume I am invisible and any crossing motorist just doesn't see me, (and I have seen motorists "suddenly" see me) and I keep an eye on a mirror to check that those behind me have seen me. But between the stoplights and slowing at intersections and where motorists may pull out from the curb, I find I ride much slower than I can on an uninterrupted path. My commute is 11 miles and takes me 50 minutes. I can ride a local path (not on my commute... off in a different direction) for 20 miles in just over an hour. Now which is better exercise? Which do you think I enjoy more? And which do you think I go much faster upon? Of course, this is not your typical park type MUP, it is quite wide.

But my point is that we do spend a bit of time on the streets expending energy "dodging" cars. Oh and even if I get all green lights... I still don't blast through intersections... I have had too many close calls with red light runners and those that don't look before turning right on red. I used to do that... If I saw a good green, it was a reason to sprint right on through... but red light runners took that pleasure away.

This is one reason probably why those guys were training in a group... expecting that the size of the group would give them more visibility... and allow them to go flat out. Of course they also had group dynamics... pacing, going on.

[syn0n]

All of which leads to a cyclist having to be so cautious as to take some of the fun out of cycling itself... where one can't just ride balls to the wall from light to light and pursue the much enjoyed speed that JF so fondly mentions in his ADC paper. You describe a situation wherein the cyclist is all but tiptoeing down the road like a mouse waiting for a cat to pounce.
The road system isn't exactly a playground. It's an incredibly dangerous place to be, statistically speaking, and everyone using it should be vigilant. I understand what you're getting at, but you're not really entitled to "fun" on the road.

[genec]

The road system isn't exactly a playground. It's an incredibly dangerous place to be, statistically speaking, and everyone using it should be vigilant. I understand what you're getting at, but you're not really entitled to "fun" on the road.

Amazing, others use statistics to show how dangerous it isn't... ;)

[San Rensho]

All of which leads to a cyclist having to be so cautious as to take some of the fun out of cycling itself... where one can't just ride balls to the wall from light to light and pursue the much enjoyed speed that JF so fondly mentions in his ADC paper. You describe a situation wherein the cyclist is all but tiptoeing down the road like a mouse waiting for a cat to pounce.

Not at all. I ride aggresively and forcefully, taking into consideration the factors Cudak describes and I get into close encounters all the time, but 99.9 % of them I am ready for what the driver is doing and just shrug it off.

[Bekologist]

having this thread degenerated into the VC forum by helemt head's pet theories about bicycling accidents is disturbing.

[Helmet Head]

I got news for you. None of us were there. We don't know exactly what happened. We will never know exactly what happened. Why does that matter? Hypothesizing about what might have happened, based on what apparently happened, or what was most reasonably likely to have happened, is as good as it gets for a jury. It's certainly as good as it gets here.
You're much more of a fool than I originally thought if you think that hypothesizing is as good as it gets for a jury.

Let's expand your jury analogy a bit Serge.

People sitting on a jury should ideally be open-minded and without judgment until they have all of the evidence. That's when they begin deliberations after all.

You, on the other hand, immediately begin going on about your pet theory about lane positioning before you have looked at all of the available evidence*. Looking at the evidence is quite different than hypothesizing after all.

The folks that have looked at the evidence, even if they could overcome your typically boorish behavior of assuming that "it's likely" that the cyclists were riding too close to the right, know that you're an idiot based upon the evidence that they have seen (that you have either willfully ignored, are too lazy to review, or too technologically challenged to review) and the fact that you're arguing about your hypothesis, which flies in the face of said evidence.

Rather than pause and gather facts, you start yet another crusade based upon your assumption just because the roadway has a bike lane, the cyclists involved in the accident were likely to be drawn to the lane, or that side of the road.

I pity the poor soul who finds you sitting in their jury box.

*eyewitness accounts, police statements, photos, and video
You missed my point. What a jury does is different from what we do here, of course. But ultimately it is just hypothesizing because even they don't know anything for sure. That's why the standard in even criminal trials is beyond any reasonable doubt, not beyond any doubt. Plus if the defense or even the jurors in deliberation can hypothesize a reasonably likely scenario that fits the facts and exonerates the accused, that establishes reasonable doubt. That what I mean by it getting as good as it gets for a jury.

We can and do go beyond that in this forum, of course. We have no obligation to limit our hypothesizing to fitting the facts. And why not? What is the purpose of discussing these actual events in a safety forum if not how to learn from them? What truly actually happened has little relevance to discussing a scenario from which we can learn. Actual events are useful in that they illustrate things that can happen, in case someone has a hard time believing that to be possible. In general we can talk hypothetically about what can happen to us while we're riding out there, and what we can and should do to protect ourselves accordingly, and actual true stories can feed our imaginations. That is their primary purpose here, is it not? If not, what is it?

[Helmet Head]

To take the jury analogy a bit further, it would never be appropriate for a jury to speculate, or to manufacture hypotheses, in deliberations.

The jury is presented with the evidence for a conviction, and with the defense against that evidence. That is all the jury is permitted to consider. A jury is permitted to decide which evidence and testimony it finds more convincing. But what HH does-- manufacture a hypothesis of what "might have happened," based on "logic and reason"-- would be grounds for a mistrial if he ever tried that in deliberations.
The jury is not allowed to consider a scenario that fits the facts, but is different from the one the prosecution has presented? How does one determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt if not by trying to hypothesize an alternative scenario that fits the facts, but failing to do so?

[genec]

Not at all. I ride aggresively and forcefully, taking into consideration the factors Cudak describes and I get into close encounters all the time, but 99.9 % of them I am ready for what the driver is doing and just shrug it off.

and that .1%... what you are creamed? :D

Hey, I ride hard when I can, but I find that intersections are not the place for sprinting, and gauging traffic in other places also tempers my pace. For the "looong" unbroken stretches of maybe a quarter mile, I get to act like a dragster. And those unbroken stretches are few and far between.

So how exactly do you ready yourself for red light running motorists that come out blind from behind a line of SUVs/vans... or motorists that look right at you and pull out just as you are in front of them? Riding aggressively into those situations will get you flattened. Don't give me the move left noise... I do that, I also watch tires and all the rest... drivers don't aways make wise decisions when distracted, and that means you have to use caution, which is not riding flat out into harms' way.