11 bicyclists crash into car

[Blue Order]

Verses the "pretend NASCAR jerks... ?" :rolleyes:I think the problem is there are too many jerks running around being jerks. The only real difference between them is their choice of vehicle.*












*Yes, I know that a motor vehicle is several tons of fast-moving metal...

[genec]

I think the problem is there are too many jerks running around being jerks. The only real difference between them is their choice of vehicle.*


*Yes, I know that a motor vehicle is several tons of fast-moving metal...

Agreed. Courtesy jest ain't that common any more.

Or to paraphrase the VC slogan... We all fare best when we act and are treated well.

[Helmet Head]

One of the questions I raised-- without offering "proof" that they were riding too fast for conditions using "logic and reason."

Now, if I had more facts about the road conditions, I could offer proof of something-- that is, after all, what prosecutors do when they prosecute a case. But the emphasis is on having the relevant facts. What were the road conditions? What were the circumstances of the accident? What is the relevant law? What legal conclusions can be drawn from that set of facts? That's what prosecutors and defense attorneys both engage in. What they don't engage in is wild flights of fancy based on an extremely limited set of facts with most of the variables unknown.
Even if that's true, what is the relevance? WE are not prosecutors or defense attorneys here. Why hold anyone to an irrelevant standard?

For the umpteenth time, this is a bicycling safety forum, where bicycling safety issues and ideas are discussed. It is not a forum that has a mandate to find out exactly what happened in this or any other crash.

[Blue Order]

Even if that's true, what is the relevance? WE are not prosecutors or defense attorneys here. Why hold anyone to an irrelevant standard?You made the claim in an earlier post that I'm speculating, just as you do. You also made the claim that juries speculate and hypothesize. I wanted to make it perfectly clear to you, before you went down that road, that prosecutors and defense attorneys build cases on fact and law, not wild flights of fancy. When cases do embark on wild flights of fancy, they are likely to be losing cases. In short, there is no resemblance between your wild flights of fancy and building a case, and that is the comparison I wanted to address before you made it.

[genec]

You made the claim in an earlier post that I'm speculating, just as you do. You also made the claim that juries speculate and hypothesize. I wanted to make it perfectly clear to you, before you went down that road, that prosecutors and defense attorneys build cases on fact and law, not wild flights of fancy. When cases do embark on wild flights of fancy, they are likely to be losing cases. In short, there is no resemblance between your wild flights of fancy and building a case, and that is the comparison I wanted to address before you made it.

But wait, on TV... ;)

:D

[Helmet Head]

You made the claim in an earlier post that I'm speculating, just as you do. You also made the claim that juries speculate and hypothesize. I wanted to make it perfectly clear to you, before you went down that road, that prosecutors and defense attorneys build cases on fact and law, not wild flights of fancy. When cases do embark on wild flights of fancy, they are likely to be losing cases. In short, there is no resemblance between your wild flights of fancy and building a case, and that is the comparison I wanted to address before you made it.
I already acknowledged that there is a world of difference between what happens in the legal system and what happens in a cycling safety forum. Duh.

You have not answered the key question here: What is the purpose of talking about specific bike-car crashes in this forum?

[noisebeam]

To anyone who reads the information as presented from linked news stories and witnesses reports then reads following discusions it is usually pretty clear what is speculation and what is reported as 'fact.' When it is not clear then a friendly followup can clarify.

Al

[noisebeam]

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

Al

[sbhikes]

Sorry to be on the bad side of all this here but I think the real problem is the peloton. I think it's an inappropriate use of public streets and is prone to nasty accidents. A solitary cyclists or a small group can handle a sudden car pulling out in front. But a 40-man peloton? That kind of thing should only be allowed on closed courses in my opinion.

[Blue Order]

Sorry to be on the bad side of all this here but I think the real problem is the peloton. I think it's an inappropriate use of public streets and is prone to nasty accidents. A solitary cyclists or a small group can handle a sudden car pulling out in front. But a 40-man peloton? That kind of thing should only be allowed on closed courses in my opinion.I think you're right.

Why is it you always make the most sense around here? :p

[noisebeam]

Sorry to be on the bad side of all this here but I think the real problem is the peloton. I think it's an inappropriate use of public streets and is prone to nasty accidents. A solitary cyclists or a small group can handle a sudden car pulling out in front. But a 40-man peloton? That kind of thing should only be allowed on closed courses in my opinion.

Why? Many thousands of cyclists ride in 'formation' every weeked across the US and in many parts of the world. Accidents can be nasty, but are often just 'rough' for the cylists who knowingly participate. But such terrible accidents as in this case are relatively rare. Far more other road users get injured and killed who are not in 'formation'.

To be clear, I don't think this particular place and time was appropriate for a 30mph peloton, that I would not argue.

Al

[OH306]

When this thread was first posted I said to myself .. I can just imagine the posts to follow. I was not disappointed. There are probably important relevant details of the incident that were not presented in the article, but from what I read there were many contributing factors.

1. Line of sight for vehicles exiting the driveway was blocked by cars parked in bike lane.
2. If 1 above was illegal (and the traffic code posted says it was), police should have ticketed offenders.
3. Driver of SUV should have been more cautious exiting driveway, but to get clear vision of traffic he probably would have needed to get his front bumper out 6 feet beyond the bike lane. Is that reasonable?
4. Since cyclists ride that route 4 or 5 nights a week they had to be aware of the situation and exercised caution or ridden elsewhere.
5. Although I am not familiar with the speed limit on that street (has it been posted here?) the cyclists were probably riding too fast for the conditions. That kind of activity was probably not good idea in that location.
6. I doubt all 11 riders hit the SUV but instead hit each other because they were following too close. Riding technique does not trump rules of the road.

So from what I have read on this thread my opinion is the primary contributing factor to this accident was the failure of the police to enforce the traffic code. Simply providing line of sight probably would have avoided the accident. So if you want to lay blame I think it is the police. This is simply my opinion, right or wrong and I will not argue.

[Blue Order]

my opinion is the primary contributing factor to this accident was the failure of the police to enforce the traffic code.The underlying cause of most accidents, I would bet.

[flargle]

There are blind entrances all over the place, and one must exercise care when exiting them.

[genec]

Sorry to be on the bad side of all this here but I think the real problem is the peloton. I think it's an inappropriate use of public streets and is prone to nasty accidents. A solitary cyclists or a small group can handle a sudden car pulling out in front. But a 40-man peloton? That kind of thing should only be allowed on closed courses in my opinion.

I disagree... but I think that prudent selection of streets is important. There are places where there are few intersections and where the road is multilaned where such large group peloton riding can be done quite safely.

This was just not such a place... at that time.

The same kind of thinking that says "inappropriate use of streets" can also be stretched to consider bicycle use in general, as an "inappropriate use of streets... "

[Blue Order]

The same kind of thinking that says "inappropriate use of streets" can also be stretched to consider bicycle use in general, as an "inappropriate use of streets... "Racing is an inappropriate use of streets, whether the vehicle is an automobile or a bicycle. If somebody wants to race, it belongs on a track, or on a closed course-- not on a street that is open to other users.

Race training? I think that comes awfully close to racing. At best, it belongs where it can't cause harm to others.

[flargle]

Racing is an inappropriate use of streets, whether the vehicle is an automobile or a bicycle. If somebody wants to race, it belongs on a track, or on a closed course-- not on a street that is open to other users.

Race training? I think that comes awfully close to racing. At best, it belongs where it can't cause harm to others.Let's outlaw all forms of recreational vehicle use.

Sir, why are you driving? Is your trip absolutely necessary? Enjoying your time on the road ist streng verboten!

[Blue Order]

Let's outlaw all forms of recreational vehicle use.

Sir, why are you driving? Is your trip absolutely necessary? Enjoying your time on the road ist streng verboten!Do you really think there's no difference at all between someone taking a leisurely Sunday drive in their car and someone drag racing their automobile on a public road?

[Allister]

Racing is an inappropriate use of streets, whether the vehicle is an automobile or a bicycle. If somebody wants to race, it belongs on a track, or on a closed course-- not on a street that is open to other users.

Race training? I think that comes awfully close to racing. At best, it belongs where it can't cause harm to others.

It's pretty natural for any group of cyclists to bunch up, no matter what their purpose is, and if you happen to race, pretty much any ride is a 'training' ride. Where do you draw the line?

[Blue Order]

It's pretty natural for any group of cyclists to bunch up, no matter what their purpose is, and if you happen to race, pretty much any ride is a 'training' ride. Where do you draw the line?I'm not sure yet. I think a peloton charging hard through areas where other users of the road are present might be one place to draw the line.

[Daily Commute]

Sorry to be on the bad side of all this here but I think the real problem is the peloton. I think it's an inappropriate use of public streets and is prone to nasty accidents. A solitary cyclists or a small group can handle a sudden car pulling out in front. But a 40-man peloton? That kind of thing should only be allowed on closed courses in my opinion.

I agree. The assured-clear-distance rule applies to cyclists, too. Drafting in traffic is dangerous. If you want to ride in a peleton, do it on open country roads.

[noisebeam]

If you want to ride in a peleton, do it on open country roads.

So no drafting in metro-Phx or any other large sprawed out metro area? You mean I need to get in my car and drive 30mi+ (that gets me to the southern edge of metro, if I wanted to ride somewhere else it would be a 50mi+) before I can start a recreation group ride, which also would mean the group would be on single lane winding 65mph country roads vs. multilane arterials in the metro area. Yeah I know I could ride solo to the edge of the city to meet the group, but in that case, I'd sure to join others I live near and ride over as a group, oops, can't do that.
Group rides with drafting formation have gone on for decades in metro-Phx and there are no stories from the experienced long time riders about any nasty peoloton-auto accidents. The deaths from this type of recreational riders in the last decade have occured with solo riders cycling to the ride start, which would only increase with a no drafting in city limits rule.

There is a way to ride in formation in suburban areas that is not hazardous. Its not head down watching the wheel ahead of you, nor is it sprinting over 30mph on residential streets with poor sightlines and multiple intersections.

(I am using the term 'formation' vs. peleton as it allows for less technical drafting)

Oh and for what its worth, I personally would be OK with no peleton riding, I do it sometimes, but my preference is for small groups or solo (or large groups on very hilly routes which spread folks out) But just because its not my way or style (I am no racer, a solo commuter at heart) doesn't mean I won't support the rights of other cyclist to do so. Disallow drafting in the metro area and it would be a major blow to recreational cycling, resulting in dwinding numbers of cyclist on the road and fewer folks getting turned on to commuting and cycling advocacy.

Al

[Allister]

I'm not sure yet. I think a peloton charging hard through areas where other users of the road are present might be one place to draw the line.

I think the biggest problem was the changed conditions. Cars blocking what would normally be clear sightlines should really have been a clue to slow down a bit. Any sort of construction usually raises flags for me. It's still significantly less stupid than pulling into an intersection when you can't see what's coming though.

[noisebeam]

I think the biggest problem was the changed conditions. Cars blocking what would normally be clear sightlines should really have been a clue to slow down a bit. Any sort of construction usually raises flags for me. It's still significantly less stupid than pulling into an intersection when you can't see what's coming though.

Exactly. "But, but... we always sprint thru this section..."

Al

[RobertHurst]

There are blind entrances all over the place, and one must exercise care when exiting them.

And when passing them as well.

[cudak888]

A couple of points:

Despite this being considered a "suburban" area, this road is NOT teeming with the activity of children at play, pedestrians, etc., as some posters here have assumed. Yes, it may be residential, but the only halfway-safe areas for the outdoor activities described are within the entrances off the main road into the actual house-lined streets (see that map posted here earlier).

The single-lane main road that these fellows were on usually caters to traffic rolling along at 45mph (over the speed limit of course, but that's the Miami way) with scattered frequency, but nevertheless, the road speed used by motorists in this area is NOT a speed conducive to Children At Play. Think of it as a suburban highway running through slower, calmer "branches" of a planned community setup.

My point? These guys, drafting or not, were running no faster then the usual automobile speed in the area - rather, I'll bet dollars to donuts that they were riding roughly 10 miles under the general speed of traffic in the area. I didn't read them, but I'm sure at least one of the complaints from the residents had to do with SITTING behind the "slow moving, obstructive" pack. I doubt if they'd say so if the pack was clipping along over the general speed of auto traffic around there.

My two cents.

-Kurt

[Bushman]

You will find that most cycling 'advocacy' groups want bicycles to be treated as cars (vehicles) when it benefits them; and as bicycles (non vehicles) when it benefits them. Peloton-schmeloton! The cyclists in the front who were cut off by the car were victims of neglect, and should be fully compensated and made whole under the law. The morons 'drafting behind them' (aka tailagating) were victims of a risk they were willing to take.

roughstuff


+ a billion!! we see that here all the time in vancouver......cyclists demand their lane, then at the light the are pedestrians (while riding thru & across the crosswalk), then they are cyclists, then they are sidewalk riders, then they are pedestrians, then they run red lights and stop signs, but still demand to treated like a vehicle.

.

[Blue Order]

+ a billion!! we see that here all the time in vancouver......cyclists demand their lane, then at the light the are pedestrians (while riding thru & across the crosswalk), then they are cyclists, then they are sidewalk riders, then they are pedestrians, then they run red lights and stop signs, but still demand to treated like a vehicle.

.Same here in Portland. :lol:

They even get all militant about it, on both sides of the fence... :lol:

[Bekologist]

IF the riders were all blind, THEN IT IS LIKELY that one of their white canes became lodged in the spokes of a fellow rider, sending them out of control into the car.



i'm putting money on bike monkey's likely scenario.

Seriously though, how many miles have you all ridden passing blind or sight restricted intersections where you put a lot of trust and faith in motorists NOT violating your ROW?

And I don't mean fail to be vigilant.

I mean, riding as vigilant as all get out, having to ride by a blind drive, intersection or passing a truck parked on the side of the road, and trusting in the good grace of other vehicles to not violate your right of way.

How many miles?

And that's vigilant and aware REGARDLESS OF lane position- you can be in the middle of the lane, even left bias, and still be in a position that a car can pull out suddenly. AND REGARDLESS of HH's pithy fallacy 'trust but verify' nonsense....

I thought about that also on the ride home, and realized a bicyclist would never get anywhere in the city in a timely manner if they had to slow down to 'verify' a car wasn't going to pull out in front of them.

Perhaps the peloton was acting like a peloton. Expect carnage and crashes.

A question I have for you all is -

How slow should vehicles, bicyclists, pelotons, horse drawn carriages (some can go pretty darn fast!) need to slow down approaching an intersection they have the right of way for?

Do you all stop before proceeding at every alleyway, and slow down thru every green light?

[flargle]

Do you really think there's no difference at all between someone taking a leisurely Sunday drive in their car and someone drag racing their automobile on a public road?You, apparently, think there's no difference between a vigorous group ride and "someone drag racing their [sic] automobile".

To rein this discussion back to reality, here is a photograph of the Suburu after the collision:
http://www.nbc6.net/slideshow/14000780/detail.htmlindex.html?currentSlide=1&taf=ami

I assure you, the damage from just a single car at the same speed would be considerably greater.

[genec]

You, apparently, think there's no difference between a vigorous group ride and "someone drag racing their [sic] automobile".

To rein this discussion back to reality, here is a photograph of the Suburu after the collision:
http://www.nbc6.net/slideshow/14000780/detail.htmlindex.html?currentSlide=1&taf=ami

I assure you, the damage from just a single car at the same speed would be considerably greater.

Just for comparison sake, I wonder what the total costs of damage are, for the bikes; and for the car.

[invisiblehand]

To rein this discussion back to reality, here is a photograph of the Suburu after the collision:
http://www.nbc6.net/slideshow/14000780/detail.htmlindex.html?currentSlide=1&taf=ami

I assure you, the damage from just a single car at the same speed would be considerably greater.

What is interesting is that there was damage across a wide area of the vehicle: the left driver door and back. The driver must have darted in front of the cyclists.

[genec]

i

I mean, riding as vigilant as all get out, having to ride by a blind drive, intersection or passing a truck parked on the side of the road, and trusting in the good grace of other vehicles to not violate your right of way.

.....

And that's vigilant and aware REGARDLESS OF lane position- you can be in the middle of the lane, even left bias, and still be in a position that a car can pull out suddenly. AND REGARDLESS of HH's pithy fallacy 'trust but verify' nonsense....

.....

How slow should vehicles, bicyclists, pelotons, horse drawn carriages (some can go pretty darn fast!) need to slow down approaching an intersection they have the right of way for?



Well at the blind intersections, moving left may help, but even in that event there is no sure guarantee that a motorist isn't going to pull out anyway...

I have been hit by a motorist looking right at me, and I have seen motorists look at me, pull out and then stop. The only way I know of to truly "verify" is to stop and get a full approval from the motorist.

But we drive in the same fashion... at any intersection any motorist can pull out at any time, regardless of the indication of a sign or the ROW... the only difference is the vulnerability of the vehicle and driver.

Yeah, we depend highly on the judgment of strangers...

[Blue Order]

You, apparently, think there's no difference between a vigorous group ride and "someone drag racing their [sic] automobile".Sorry champ, YOU are the one who tried to pretend that I was against all recreational use of the road (http://bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5179517&postcount=185).

[flargle]

Sorry champ, YOU are the one who tried to pretend that I was against all recreational use of the road (http://bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5179517&postcount=185).We could argue about arguing all day long. But certainly you must agree that a single car at 30mph would have damaged the defendant's car far more than the entire group of cyclists did.

[Blue Order]

We could argue about arguing all day long. But certainly you must agree that a single car at 30mph would have damaged the defendant's car far more than the entire group of cyclists did.Yes, that's most likely true. Now run that peloton into a woman crossing the road with her baby in a stroller and what are the results?

Whether a use of the road is appropriate depends on the character of the use, and on road conditions, not on whether the use is "transportational" or "recreational." Even some transportational uses-- overweight trucks come to mind-- are not acceptable uses of the road. A leisurely drive is almost always acceptable. A drag race on a road open to the public is never acceptable. A recreational ride is always acceptable. Whether a hard-charging peloton is an acceptable use of the road depends on the road conditions. The fact that they had an accident here with another road user indicates a strong possibility that they were not using that particular road in an acceptable manner.

[Helmet Head]

Yes, that's most likely true. Now run that peloton into a woman crossing the road with her baby in a stroller and what are the results?

Whether a use of the road is appropriate depends on the character of the use, and on road conditions, not on whether the use is "transportational" or "recreational." Even some transportational uses-- overweight trucks come to mind-- are not acceptable uses of the road. A leisurely drive is almost always acceptable. A drag race on a road open to the public is never acceptable. A recreational ride is always acceptable. Whether a hard-charging peloton is an acceptable use of the road depends on the road conditions. The fact that they had an accident here with another road user indicates a strong possibility that they were not using that particular road in an acceptable manner.
In particular, there is a strong possibility that they were going too fast for conditions.
A car driving at the same speed would also arguably have been going too fast for conditions.

Normally, it might be safe, reasonable and acceptable to drive a car or even a hard-charging peloton at that speed at this location.

However, with the parked cars shortening the sight lines, the conditions changed from what they are normally. Unfortunately, the cyclists did not change their behavior accordingly, apparently.

[Blue Order]

In particular, there is a strong possibility that they were going too fast for conditions.
A car driving at the same speed would also arguably have been going too fast for conditions.

Normally, it might be safe, reasonable and acceptable to drive a car or even a hard-charging peloton at that speed at this location.

However, with the parked cars shortening the sight lines, the conditions changed from what they are normally. Unfortunately, the cyclists did not change their behavior accordingly, apparently.Wow, we agree! :eek:

It's not likely that 30 MPH is in violation of the speed limit for that road, but as you say, it may be in violation of the basic speed law, which is dependent upon the existing conditions.

I don't know that they were riding too fast for conditions, but the accident is an indicator of that possibility. It also indicates that the driver of the car may have been negligent in the way he entered the road, and it also indicates that the persons responsible for the vehicles being parked there may also have been negligent.

[Helmet Head]

Wow, we agree! :eek:

It's not likely that 30 MPH is in violation of the speed limit for that road, but as you say, it may be in violation of the basic speed law, which is dependent upon the existing conditions.

I don't know that they were riding too fast for conditions, but the accident is an indicator of that possibility. It also indicates that the driver of the car may have been negligent in the way he entered the road, and it also indicates that the persons responsible for the vehicles being parked there may also have been negligent.
And hopefully you will agree with this too.

It is also possible that they were riding too far right for the conditions, though there is evidence that suggests at least some of the group was pretty far left.

Regardless of whether they were actually going too fast or riding too far right for the conditions, the main take away for members of this safety forum is: parked cars and other obstacles that shorten sight lines to/from places that traffic may be moving in or out of should be recognized as a condition that often calls for heightened awareness, slowing down, and/or moving left.

Another lesson, I think, is: Beware of group-(non)-think mentality, particularly in terms of habits formed when a group regularly rides the same route. Just because riding a certain way in some place has been reasonable and appropriate every time the route was ridden for the last two years, does not mean it is reasonable and appropriate to ride that way there today: you must always keep alert for changing conditions and how that affects appropriate speed, positioning and other aspects of cycling behavior. Don't just blindly follow the guy in front of you. It's your responsibility to know and verify that it is reasonably safe to draft, and to continue drafting, before and while you are doing it.

[Blue Order]

And hopefully you will agree with this too.

It is also possible that they were riding too far right for the conditions, though there is evidence that suggests at least some of the group was pretty far left.I don't see what their politics have to do with it... ;)

[dholland]

[quote=Chaco;5169130]
Why is this any different? Here is a guy who darts out right into the middle of the street without even looking. He didn't "see" the peloton? PUUUHHHLEEEAAASSSEEE! LOL, give me a break. If you can't see a peloton of 40 bicycles barreling down the street, then you shouldn't be driving at all, because you're obviously blind as a bat.
QUOTE]

True, it would be hard to miss 40 cyclist 2 abreast traveling a safe distance from each other. The string of cyclist would be about 600 feet long to do that at 30mph.

[alanbikehouston]

[quote=Chaco;5169130]
Why is this any different? Here is a guy who darts out right into the middle of the street without even looking. He didn't "see" the peloton? PUUUHHHLEEEAAASSSEEE! LOL, give me a break. If you can't see a peloton of 40 bicycles barreling down the street, then you shouldn't be driving at all, because you're obviously blind as a bat.
QUOTE]

True, it would be hard to miss 40 cyclist 2 abreast traveling a safe distance from each other. The string of cyclist would be about 600 feet long to do that at 30mph.

That's not what happened. Take a look at the video and the two news stories that have links in the threads about this incident. There were about 40 guys racing in a line at 30 mph on a street that had parked cars on both sides. The driver was pulling out of an apartment complex driveway where the parked cars would obscure his view of on-coming traffic until he was five or six feet out into the street.

If (and IF is always a question) the driver had looked directly at the on-coming bikes, he would have a clear view of only the first bike or two. How many feet per second does a bike cover at 30 mph? How many feet away was the "lead" bike just five seconds before the collision?

When I see an on-coming cyclist who is riding a road bike, and he is down in the drops in the "pretend racer" position so popular with aging stockbrokers and bank clerks, I am always struck by how tiny the "head-on profile of a road bike is...far, far smaller than even the smallest car. A driver coming out of a driveway may have his eyes/brain tuned to look for an approaching truck or car, but often don't seem "tuned" for the tiny profile presented by a road bike at a "head on" angle.

There are dozens of posts about this incident where people argue about the "law" and the "legal rights" of the cyclists involved. Safety is NOT a legal question. It is an ethical and moral question. When I ride my bike down someone else's street, past their home, or the park where their children play, I have an ethical/moral obligation to ride in a manner that shows due consideration for the folks who live/play/work in that neighborhood.

So, if I'm riding past an apartment complex, and both sides of the street are lined with park cars, what do I already know? I know that cars coming out of the apartment complex are not going to be able to see me until they are out into the street, clear of the parked cars. I know that most apartment complexes are full of kids, dogs, moms pushing strollers, and old ladies on walkers. And, I know from experience that ONE of them is going to pop out from between two of those parked cars: a kid, a dog, a mom pushing a stroller, an old lady on a stroller.

So, what do I have to do? Slow down to a speed that enables me to closely observe each driveway, each gap between parked cars, and stop or take evasive action when someone walks out in front of my bike. Depending on the width of that street, traffic, wet pavement versus dry pavement, that "safe" speed could be 15 mph, 10 mph, or even as little as 5 mph (that darned street full of old ladies taking their morning walk...right down the middle of the street).

So, 40 guys, racing at 30 mph, one front tire inches from the next guys back tire, past a apartment complex driveway concealed by parked cars. First one piles into a car. Then the second. Then the third, and so on, and so on....one moron after another...each paying the price that the laws of Karma demand of the stupid and the arrogant.

[StrangeWill]

If they were in the bike lane or riding nearly adjacent to parked cars, then, yes, they were riding too fast. In urban/suburban environments with hidden alleys and driveways like that, going any faster than 15 mph in the bike lane or near it is too fast. You need to be out in the traffic lane where the sight lines are much better and you are more conspicuous.

Do you drive a car?

I routinely do deliveries where two full vehicle lanes are blocked from clear view from the sidewalk (along with a bike lane). There is no riding far left enough to be safe. Some times it's just bad road design.

[Bekologist]

whats' the speed limit on that road again?

Driver of car failed to yield right of way before pulling into street from driveway.

[Helmet Head]

Do you drive a car?

I routinely do deliveries where two full vehicle lanes are blocked from clear view from the sidewalk (along with a bike lane). There is no riding far left enough to be safe. Some times it's just bad road design.
There is a speed slow enough that is safe for any lateral position. The further left you are, the higher that speed is likely to be. But there may be some instances where being as far left as the center of the road the only safe speed is very slow. See pp 65-66 in Robert Hurst's Urban Cycling for an example of a cyclist going too fast and/or too far right for the situation, given the blind alley he was approaching. The Mercedes driver who suddenly pulled out of the blind alley is clearly primarily at fault, but Hurst agrees he too should have been going slower and paying more attention. Considering he was in the bike lane, I think he should have been much further left too.

[StrangeWill]

There is a speed slow enough that is safe for any lateral position. The further left you are, the higher that speed is likely to be. But there may be some instances where being as far left as the center of the road the only safe speed is very slow. See pp 65-66 in Robert Hurst's Urban Cycling for an example of a cyclist going too fast and/or too far right for the situation, given the blind alley he was approaching. The Mercedes driver who suddenly pulled out of the blind alley is clearly primarily at fault, but Hurst agrees he too should have been going slower and paying more attention. Considering he was in the bike lane, I think he should have been much further left too.

Ya, I'm just saying that there is a strong possibility that it's poor road planing looking at the overhead photo, it looks much the same of the apartment complex I deliver to a lot, which has like a 40mph speed limit, and most people jump out blindly, it's also at the end of a merge, so both lanes are unsafe. :p It's cheaper to put people at risk instead of making the parking lot larger.

A bike can slow down, so can cars, alas the fault is poor road planning you can always say that in an accident, going slower would have prevented it. Usually around here people put up mirrors around blind turns like those.

[littlewaywelt]

Riding in a paceline on public streets at that speed is asking for trouble. There's a reason that cars/vehicles are supposed to (and required to) maintain safe spacing between vehicles.
The first rider was harmed by the car that pulled out, everyone else, nope. If we replaced the riders with a chain of cars all following 1 foot behind the other, the drivers ramming into the cars in front of them (the first one exluded) would be responsible for damaging the car in front of them and for their own damage.

[StrangeWill]

Riding in a paceline on public streets at that speed is asking for trouble. There's a reason that cars/vehicles are supposed to (and required to) maintain safe spacing between vehicles.
The first rider was harmed by the car that pulled out, everyone else, nope. If we replaced the riders with a chain of cars all following 1 foot behind the other, the drivers ramming into the cars in front of them (the first one exluded) would be responsible for damaging the car in front of them and for their own damage.

The 3 second rule (sometimes the 5, but usually the 3 second rule in the DMV handbook) only applies to reaction time to the braking of the vehicle in front of them, it wont actually stop most vehicles in time, except for the lightest and most maneuverable. (mine barely pulls it off) Hitting a car would be such an immediate deceleration that the car behind them could very possibly hit them.

They should have more spacing than a foot in unsure situations, but anything less than an overly drastic amount of spacing wouldn't have mattered for the first 3-4 guys.


I agree, spacing is good, but it's only lessening the damage of the event, wont prevent it.

[littlewaywelt]

The 3-5 second rule only applies to reaction time to the braking of the vehicle in front of them, it wont actually stop most vehicles in time, except for the lightest and most maneuverable. (mine barely pulls it off) Hitting a car would be such an immediate deceleration that the car behind them could very possibly hit them.

They should have more spacing than a foot in unsure situations, but anything less than an overly drastic amount of spacing wouldn't have mattered for the first 3-4 guys.

5 seconds will stop my car from more than 60. It's plenty of time. Regardless, it's the responsibility of the driver to leave enough space so as not to rear-end the car in front regardless of what happens to the car in front.

If cyclists want the power of the vehicular laws and motorists' respect they can't whine (not saying they are) when they don't exercise due caution. The fact is the riders beyond the first will have to bare the consequences of their personal decisions to ride at high speed with no room for emergency braking. There's a very strong and reasonable case to be made that the driver who pulled out in front of them is only responsible for the impact to the first rider in the paceline.

[StrangeWill]

5 seconds will stop my car from more than 60. It's plenty of time. Regardless, it's the responsibility of the driver to leave enough space so as not to rear-end the car in front regardless of what happens to the car in front.

If cyclists want the power of the vehicular laws and motorists' respect they can't whine (not saying they are) when they don't exercise due caution. The fact is the riders beyond the first will have to bare the consequences of their personal decisions to ride at high speed with no room for emergency braking. There's a very strong and reasonable case to be made that the driver who pulled out in front of them is only responsible for the impact to the first rider in the paceline.

I've already agreed that spacing is required, but no realistic amount of spacing is ever going to be enough to account for bad road planning though. I mean, we're talking about needing about 100 feet in between bikes. Probably more. Again, I doubt you ride like that.

And I know you're full of it when you tell me you drive with a 5 second lag time. The internet is the best place for liars. :p

Not to mention, we're not talking about the light cars a lot of us bike owners drive, we're talking about the majority of vehicles that weigh 3500+ that take a good 200+ feet (in some cases I've heard unloaded suburbans can take over 300 on dry pavement), sometimes more, to stop. Remember part of those 5 seconds are reaction time. Oh, and no one drives at 5 seconds. :p