Advocacy & Safety - 81-year old cyclist killed by a left cross

It's hard to tell from this brief article (http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071219/BREAKINGNEWS/312200002/1086), but it appears this 81-year old cyclist was killed when a large pickup turned left in front of him. If it was a left cross, the artilce is written in a typically biased way when it says the rider "rode into the path" of the turning truck.

Don't miss the reader comments. It seems we riders offend the sense of style enjoyed by fat-a**ed cagers. Who knew? Please feel free to add your own comments.

The last graph of the article suggests there are some questions on exactly what happened, making reasonable commentary very difficult if not impossible.

The last graph of the article suggests there are some questions on exactly what happened, making reasonable commentary very difficult if not impossible.

Right - there just isn't enough information to determine fault. However, circumstantial evidence (the truck was making a left turn in front of the cyclist) does point to fault being the driver's. Sadly, we'll most likely never know.


... Brad

Not the first time I've said this, & not the last either: establish massive mandatory minimum fines and jail time, and we won't have to mourn such senseless death.

No consequences = no change in behavior.

How nice that there were plenty of insults to the deceased placed in the "comments" section for his friend to read over and respond to.

Classy stuff.

There is also the ignorant comment by triforcharity that bike helmets should be able to protect you at speeds of up to 40mph.

Just checked the CPSC regs and they call for an impact speed of 16ft/sec which equates to 10.9mph. IIRC, the Snell impact requirement is 14mph. No doubt our reseident technos will correct me if I'm wrong

Looks like the intersection of two wide arterials where cyclists typically ride too far right and outside the zone of where drivers pay the most attention.

link (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=Wickham+Road+at+Aurora+Road,+Melbourne,+FL&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=33.214763,78.574219&ie=UTF8&ll=28.135866,-80.67175&spn=0.000564,0.001199&t=h&z=20&om=1&layer=c&cbll=28.135866,-80.67175)

link2 (http://maps.live.com/#JnE9eXAuV2lja2hhbStSb2FkK2F0K0F1cm9yYStSb2FkJTJjK01lbGJvdXJuZSUyYytGTCU3ZXNzdC4wJTdlcGcuMSZiYj01My4 yMjU3Njg0MzU3OTAyJTdlLTY4LjI5MTAxNTYyNSU3ZTIyLjk5ODg1MTU5NDE0MjklN2UtMTQxLjU5MTc5Njg3NQ==)

It's also possible that the cyclist was riding through the crosswalk after leaving the sidewalk/sidepath on the northern side of Wickham, perhaps going against the flow of traffic. That might help explain how he was overlooked by the motorist.

It's also possible that the cyclist was riding through the crosswalk after leaving the sidewalk/sidepath on the northern side of Wickham, perhaps going against the flow of traffic. That might help explain how he was overlooked by the motorist.
good call. i did not notice that.

Ah, that's very sad. :(

The linked article is total devoid of any facts.

But we have managed to assign blame.

Looks like the intersection of two wide arterials where cyclists typically ride too far right and outside the zone of where drivers pay the most attention.

link (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=Wickham+Road+at+Aurora+Road,+Melbourne,+FL&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=33.214763,78.574219&ie=UTF8&ll=28.135866,-80.67175&spn=0.000564,0.001199&t=h&z=20&om=1&layer=c&cbll=28.135866,-80.67175)

link2 (http://maps.live.com/#JnE9eXAuV2lja2hhbStSb2FkK2F0K0F1cm9yYStSb2FkJTJjK01lbGJvdXJuZSUyYytGTCU3ZXNzdC4wJTdlcGcuMSZiYj01My4 yMjU3Njg0MzU3OTAyJTdlLTY4LjI5MTAxNTYyNSU3ZTIyLjk5ODg1MTU5NDE0MjklN2UtMTQxLjU5MTc5Njg3NQ==)

Looks like the intersection where I was hit while traveling IN the driving lane... in fact to the left edge of the driving lane.

Get over yourself.

What a jackass.

There is also the ignorant comment by triforcharity that bike helmets should be able to protect you at speeds of up to 40mph.

Just checked the CPSC regs and they call for an impact speed of 16ft/sec which equates to 10.9mph. IIRC, the Snell impact requirement is 14mph. No doubt our reseident technos will correct me if I'm wrong

Even if a helmet could withstand a 40mph impact, the neck it's attached to wouldn't

good call. i did not notice that.

That's because he just pulled it out of his arse.

At least the VC Caucus is in agreement once again - Cyclist probably should've been further left :rolleyes:

That's because he just pulled it out of his arse.

At least the VC Caucus is in agreement once again - Cyclist probably should've been further left :rolleyes:

In agreement about what? That a sidewalk exists? Whoopdeedo.

http://www.thecourier-online.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1574&dept_id=532215&newsid=19127317&PAG=461&rfi=9

http://www.thecourier-online.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1574&dept_id=532215&newsid=19127317&PAG=461&rfi=9

"witnesses reported Jennings was riding on the shoulder, well off of the roadway, facing oncoming traffic, when he was struck."

Wrong way cyclist?

"witnesses reported Jennings was riding on the shoulder, well off of the roadway, facing oncoming traffic, when he was struck."

Wrong way cyclist?

That much seems clear. But the rest seems strange. Should it really read witnesses reported Jennings had been riding on the shoulder...

If they actually witnessed the impact then any witness had to see the car and would also be able to report how the car got onto the shoulder, and one would think that detail worth including in a news report.

"witnesses reported Jennings was riding on the shoulder, well off of the roadway, facing oncoming traffic, when he was struck."

Wrong way cyclist?


You're talking about a completely different accident.

There is also the ignorant comment by triforcharity that bike helmets should be able to protect you at speeds of up to 40mph.

Just checked the CPSC regs and they call for an impact speed of 16ft/sec which equates to 10.9mph. IIRC, the Snell impact requirement is 14mph. No doubt our reseident technos will correct me if I'm wrong

No, you're right.

John

Not the first time I've said this, & not the last either: establish massive mandatory minimum fines and jail time, and we won't have to mourn such senseless death.

No consequences = no change in behavior.

You've hit part of it on the head. The other part is to do what some European countries do, and say that the auto driver is responsible, no matter the blame. These are things that can be observed if someone would only do so, and prevented by the auto driver.

The part you got right is the consequences part. In behavioral safety, consequences may be either sooner or later, positive or negative, and sure or unsure. The behavior is reinforced if the consequences are sure, sooner and positive rather than unsure, later and negative. There is a continuum between these two too. But we every day reinforce unsafe driving habits by providing positive, sure and soon consequences for not being totally observant in driving situations. The auto industry reinforces these bad driving habits daily with TV ads too. The fact that if a bicyclist is hit, the consequences to the driver are very unsure, usually negative, and happen later rather than sooner reinforces our current unsafe behavior that we see daily.

John

You've hit part of it on the head. The other part is to do what some European countries do, and say that the auto driver is responsible, no matter the blame. These are things that can be observed if someone would only do so, and prevented by the auto driver.

The part you got right is the consequences part. In behavioral safety, consequences may be either sooner or later, positive or negative, and sure or unsure. The behavior is reinforced if the consequences are sure, sooner and positive rather than unsure, later and negative. There is a continuum between these two too. But we every day reinforce unsafe driving habits by providing positive, sure and soon consequences for not being totally observant in driving situations. The auto industry reinforces these bad driving habits daily with TV ads too. The fact that if a bicyclist is hit, the consequences to the driver are very unsure, usually negative, and happen later rather than sooner reinforces our current unsafe behavior that we see daily.

John
John, what is the significance of consequences in terms of changing behavior if the perceived opportunity to engage in the behavior is extremely low?

For example, if the odds of opening a door is very unlikely to occur right as a cyclist is riding by, how much more likely are people to look first if the fine is raised from $50 or $250? I mean, if they're basically thinking it's not gonna happen, what do they care what are the consequences? And no matter what the penalty might be, wouldn't a desire to avoid having that happen to someone be more significant for most people than a fine anyway? If you open the door and suddenly there is a guy with a separated shoulder, unconscious and bleeding all over your door, isn't that consequences? What does it matter if you throw a $200 file on there? The key is to get these people to understand the consequences are serious (the crash, not the fine/penalty) and sufficiently likely to warrant looking first.

But trying to create "consequences" with fines/penalties for opening a door (or turning left in front of a cyclist you didn't see) is meaningless when someone doesn't realize the behavior you're trying to change is applicable to them.

Sorry for not using the correct technical language, not my field, but I hope you get the idea. Is there any terminology for this concept?

John, what is the significance of consequences in terms of changing behavior if the perceived opportunity to engage in the behavior is extremely low?

For example, if the odds of opening a door is very unlikely to occur right as a cyclist is riding by, how much more likely are people to look first if the fine is raised from $50 or $250? I mean, if they're basically thinking it's not gonna happen, what do they care what are the consequences? And no matter what the penalty might be, wouldn't a desire to avoid having that happen to someone be more significant for most people than a fine anyway? If you open the door and suddenly there is a guy with a separated shoulder, unconscious and bleeding all over your door, isn't that consequences? What does it matter if you throw a $200 file on there? The key is to get these people to understand the consequences are serious (the crash, not the fine/penalty) and sufficiently likely to warrant looking first.

But trying to create "consequences" with fines/penalties for opening a door (or turning left in front of a cyclist you didn't see) is meaningless when someone doesn't realize the behavior you're trying to change is applicable to them.

Sorry for not using the correct technical language, not my field, but I hope you get the idea. Is there any terminology for this concept?

You have a point here, but consider that perhaps people never even envision the potential consequences of opening a door on a cyclist, or perhaps people are not aware of the fact that they are responsible for the consequences of opening a door into traffic... obviously the consequences of an open door being hit by a passing car are somewhat immediate and therefore understandable.

But consider the potential consequences of not wearing seatbelts, and the fact that the government went to a very public campaign to initiate the public about seatbelts, and finally went to law enforcement and a very public campaign to bring about behavior change to get people to wear seatbelts.

Sometimes the public needs a very very "loud" message to finally "get it."

As yet I am unaware of any campaign regarding the rights and safety of cyclists... other than the very successful helmet campaigns and laws (which ultimately may have painted a very negative picture of cycling to the public). In fact, the only campaigns regarding cycling safety I know of are either very old... such as the B&W movies from the late 50's/early 60's such as "One Got Fat," or the nearly "stealth" campaigns by SDCBC regarding education which even LBSs are not aware of.

My point, as I've said before... we gotta get the word out.

John, what is the significance of consequences in terms of changing behavior if the perceived opportunity to engage in the behavior is extremely low?

For example, if the odds of opening a door is very unlikely to occur right as a cyclist is riding by, how much more likely are people to look first if the fine is raised from $50 or $250? I mean, if they're basically thinking it's not gonna happen, what do they care what are the consequences? And no matter what the penalty might be, wouldn't a desire to avoid having that happen to someone be more significant for most people than a fine anyway? If you open the door and suddenly there is a guy with a separated shoulder, unconscious and bleeding all over your door, isn't that consequences? What does it matter if you throw a $200 file on there? The key is to get these people to understand the consequences are serious (the crash, not the fine/penalty) and sufficiently likely to warrant looking first.

But trying to create "consequences" with fines/penalties for opening a door (or turning left in front of a cyclist you didn't see) is meaningless when someone doesn't realize the behavior you're trying to change is applicable to them.

Sorry for not using the correct technical language, not my field, but I hope you get the idea. Is there any terminology for this concept?
HH,

I cannot spend a lot of time on this right now (getting ready for work), but the consequences are not the consequences to the bicyclist in the above illustration, but the consequences to the motorist. The positive, certain and soon consequence of simply opening the door without looking is that the motorist gets where (s)he wants to go more quickly. It is very uncertain that a cyclist will be there, and if there, that the door will actually impact the cyclist. There is on penalty of this either. So educational efforts are made to make these drivers aware that they are potentially springing tragic consequences upon a cyclist. But it is the consequences to the motorist that will change the motorist's behavior, not the consequences to the bicyclist.

John

But consider the potential consequences of not wearing seatbelts, and the fact that the government went to a very public campaign to initiate the public about seatbelts, and finally went to law enforcement and a very public campaign to bring about behavior change to get people to wear seatbelts.

That's totally different. The opportunity to be caught in the state of "not wearing seatbelts" is nearly constant while driving. That's why the campaign was relatively effective. If the law required wearing of blue and yellow striped undergarments, there would be much less compliance, because the opportunity to be caught in the state of "not wearing blue and yellow striped undergarments" would be negligible.

In other words consequences are a combination of the severity of the consequence AND the probability of suffering those consequences. Even the consequences of a death penalty would not concern me if it applied to a behavior I could never engage in, like riding a bike 100MPH.


But it is the consequences to the motorist that will change the motorist's behavior, not the consequences to the bicyclist.
Yes, that's my point. And in a dooring situation, the consequences to the motorist are suddenly having a guy with a separated shoulder, unconscious and bleeding all over your door. Obviously I'd rather be the motorist than the cyclist, but it's still a highly unpleasant experience for the motorist, one that most would prefer to avoid. Would adding a fine really change anything in terms of consequences to the motorist that inhibit a certain behavior to any significant degree?

And what is the behavior that we're trying to inhibit? It is this: opening a door without first looking back to check for traffic in the door zone, including possibly a bicyclist.

The problem is that there is no way to enforce that, no way to create artificial consequences, except in the very rare case where someone neglects to look, opens his door, and actually doors someone. I mean, you won't have hidden cameras looking for motorists who park their cars and neglect to look back before they open their doors, and give them a ticket for engaging in that behavior. So look at this from the perspective of any one motorist. The odds of that EVER happening to him or her are arguably negligible. What is his motivation to change his behavior? Sure, by increasing the fine you've increased the severity of the potential consequences, and your campaign has made him aware of this, but you never addressed the root problem: that this is still just as unlikely to ever be a factor in his life.

Same thing with left cross crashes. You can't start fining motorists for not looking for cyclists before turning left. The only way you could tell that they didn't look is if there happened to be a cyclist there and they turn in front of him. How often does that happen to any given motorist? We as cyclists see it often enough, but that's has little to do with how often any given motorist is even in a potential left-cross situation with a bicyclist, much less where such a potential manifests itself in an actual left cross. So, again, you can increase the consequences, and have a campaign, but you're not addressing the fact that the odds of any given motorist who is the target of your campaign remains highly unlikely to ever be affected by any of this.

Do you see how that makes it much more difficult (perhaps impossible) to inhibit behavior that is impossible to notice unless there are actual natural consequences (which are highly unlikely) like "opening doors without looking" and "turning left without looking for a cyclist coming the other way" with additional artificial consequences (fines/penalties) and campaigns than it is to inhibit behavior that is much easier to notice and enforce, like "not wearing seatbelt" or even "driving under the influence"?

In other words, to give someone a seatbelt or DUI ticket, you don't have to wait until they crash and are shown to have been without the seatbelt on, or drunk. You can catch them without the seatbelt, or driving drunk, without there being any crash at all. Thus the artificial consequences are combined with a relatively high probability of getting caught, which makes such a campaign effective. But with "not looking" there is practically no way to catch them unless there is a crash. So any campaign to change behavior in this area is practically certain to fail.

HH,

No time for detailed stuff here, but a couple of thoughts. For the particular motorist who actually "doors" a cyclist, I'm sure that would be a "significant emotional event," and that opening a door without looking would not likely occur again. But only for that particular motorist. Others will be oblivious, without education and training. It can become second-nature to look, but unless there is an emphasis on motorists responsibilities, it won't happen.

So how would be influence this behavior? Talk to the auto manufacturers and ask that they place a short statement when the door handle is activated whereby the car tells the driver to look is an example of something that could work (and it's not so far into the future, with On-Star and everything else being put into cars). One other approach would be for the police to impound every car involved in a car/bike or car/pedestrian collision (fatal or not) for at least 48 hours. That would cause drivers to take notice (loss of driving priveleges on that car for a time). This would be independent of blame--just automatic until things were sorted out. But then, police departments would need to gear up, as there would be a lot of impounds occurring. ;)

John

HH,

No time for detailed stuff here, but a couple of thoughts. For the particular motorist who actually "doors" a cyclist, I'm sure that would be a "significant emotional event," and that opening a door without looking would not likely occur again. But only for that particular motorist. Others will be oblivious, without education and training. It can become second-nature to look, but unless there is an emphasis on motorists responsibilities, it won't happen.

So how would be influence this behavior? Talk to the auto manufacturers and ask that they place a short statement when the door handle is activated whereby the car tells the driver to look is an example of something that could work (and it's not so far into the future, with On-Star and everything else being put into cars). One other approach would be for the police to impound every car involved in a car/bike or car/pedestrian collision (fatal or not) for at least 48 hours. That would cause drivers to take notice (loss of driving priveleges on that car for a time). This would be independent of blame--just automatic until things were sorted out. But then, police departments would need to gear up, as there would be a lot of impounds occurring. ;)

John
I agree that the dooring is a "significant emotional event" for the motorist who doors someone. But what we're trying to do, presumably, is change the behavior of those who have not yet doored a cyclist, and probably never will. And since they probably never will, even if they never look before opening their door, it's going to be very difficult to change that behavior, even with education and training. I mean, what can you do? Frankly, I'm about as aware of the problem as you can reasonably expect a person to be, and, yet, I catch myself, more often than I care to admit, getting out of the car realizing I had opened the door without checking first. What kind of education and training would help me in this regard? It's all about establishing habit, and it's really hard to get in the habit of doing something when there is no result in doing that something.

I also agree that there may be technological solutions, but the cost of them is probably going to be difficult to justify, again, based on the really low incidence of doorings.

And then you still have the left cross problem, where you have many of the same factors that make it very challenging to change people's behavior. When drivers enter and turn left at hundreds if not thousands of intersections without encountering an oncoming cyclist in a potential conflict situation, it provides very little opportunity and motivation to change their habits, which is likely to be encoded in their unconscious minds as "look for oncoming cars where cars tend to be, as well as peds in the crosswalk; turn left when none". What kind of education/training/technology changes that subconscious encoding to change to "look for oncoming bicyclists and motorcyclists as well oncoming cars where cars tend to be and peds in the crosswalk, and look for bicyclists off to the side from where cars tend to be; turn left when none"? Do you really think that when you impound the car of John Doe for 48 hours for being involved in a car/bike crash, that that is going to change the behavior (i.e., the subconscious encoding) of anyone else who remains highly unlikely of ever being involved in a car/bike crash?

It's true that hearing that your friend got arrested for a DUI might influence you into being more careful about drunk driving. But that's only because you know you drink and drive and might get caught. But if you hear your friend got his car impounded after left-crossing an 81 year old man on a bike, how is your behavior going to change?

I was in traffic court yesterday and watched the judge handle a fellow charged with careless driving, a noncriminal infraction. The same ticket you get in a minor fender bender. Excpet that this fellow pulled out of a side street onto a major highway, t-boned a van and killed a 35-year old mother of three heading back to work after lunch on a regular workday last May. He was a 55-year old engineer for a company at Kennedy Space Center, no drugs or alcohol, no cell phone, texting, sleepiness, just simple negligence.

No threat of fines, prison, or lawsuits will prevent an accident like that. People commit acts of negligence, not due to malevolence or ill will, but because they are human.

That's why you ride a bike (and drive) defensively. You where your helmet, your seatbelt, and you follow the laws. And you hope you are not the one who dies.

I was in traffic court yesterday and watched the judge handle a fellow charged with careless driving, a noncriminal infraction. The same ticket you get in a minor fender bender. Excpet that this fellow pulled out of a side street onto a major highway, t-boned a van and killed a 35-year old mother of three heading back to work after lunch on a regular workday last May. He was a 55-year old engineer for a company at Kennedy Space Center, no drugs or alcohol, no cell phone, texting, sleepiness, just simple negligence.

No threat of fines, prison, or lawsuits will prevent an accident like that. People commit acts of negligence, not due to malevolence or ill will, but because they are human.

That's why you ride a bike (and drive) defensively.

:beer:

I love it when somebody else makes my point so much more eloquently.

Thank you.



You wear your helmet, your seatbelt, and you follow the laws. And you hope you are not the one who dies.
That's a good start, but there is significantly more to defensive cycling than wearing your helmet and following the laws, not the least of which is paying attention, and operating conspicuously and predictably (legal riding can be done without paying sufficient attention, without being conspicuous, and even not being predictable).

Perhaps the commercials are different elsewhere in the country, but I doubt it Los Angeles is pretty far from Florida. (Bobby Bowden is the coach of Florida State).

Out here I've seen the same Allstate comercial often enough to be getting tired of it. The one where the driver says 'There's Bobby Bowden, I'm going to touch him', opens the door and all but gets the door torn off by a passing truck.

The message is clear, this is a really dangerous act, not just that others might get hurt, but that you might get killed. This is practically a saturation ad. If it has not made an impact nothing short of welding drivers sirde doors shut will.