SF Chronicle bike accident analysis

[shatdow]

It appears this article was written as a general analysis to follow-up on the Cupertino tragedy. I am quite surprised at the statistics they mention: for the last 10 years of Bay Area accident reports,
...bicyclists were deemed at fault in 1,165, or nearly 60 percent, of the 1,997 accidents that killed or severely injured cyclists; drivers were blamed only 520 times, or 26 percent. In most other cases, no one was listed as being at fault.

I'll save my thoughts on this for later in the thread.
Link. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/22/MNU3VOB22.DTL)


Bicyclists blamed twice as often as drivers
Erin McCormick, Chronicle Staff Writer

Saturday, March 22, 2008

Bicyclists were twice as likely as drivers to be at fault in the nearly 2,000 collisions that killed or severely injured Bay Area bike riders in the past decade, an analysis by The Chronicle shows.

Bicycle and safety advocates say the deaths two weeks ago of two cyclists hit by a Santa Clara sheriff's deputy's cruiser should serve as a call to improve relations between cars and bikes on the roadways.

The advocates say large numbers of cyclists fail to follow the rules of the road, running stop signs and red lights, and drivers are becoming more aggressive.

"There is a juggernaut out there - the tension between the cyclists and the drivers is so high that it's become a war," said triathlon coach Marc Evans, who is starting a campaign to get the cycling community, drivers and motorcyclists to put more focus on avoiding deadly collisions on the roads.

The Chronicle's analysis of the 33,000 Bay Area collisions involving bicyclists since 1997 shows that, in the most serious accidents, the driving behaviors of bicyclists often were blamed for the crashes. Data collected by the California Highway Patrol show that bicyclists were deemed at fault in 1,165, or nearly 60 percent, of the 1,997 accidents that killed or severely injured cyclists; drivers were blamed only 520 times, or 26 percent. In most other cases, no one was listed as being at fault.
Suspicion of bias

Bicycling advocates said the statistics might in part reflect a bias among police officers, who they say often "blame the victims," especially because cyclists might not get to tell their side of the story as they are being carried off on stretchers.

"There is a prevalent perception among police officers that bikes don't belong on the road," said Leah Shahum, executive director of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition.

Yet even the most staunch cycling advocates acknowledge that some cyclists give others a bad name by failing to obey traffic laws.

"When I see a rider run a red light, I cringe," Shahum said. "Not only is it totally unsafe, it makes me and all other cyclists look bad."

As for drivers, the data suggest their behavior is getting worse by the year.
Serious crashes

The number of serious Bay Area crashes in which cyclists were at fault has hovered at about 100 per year for the past decade, but the number in which motorists were blamed has steadily risen - from 38 in 1997 to 61 in 2006, the last full year for which data were available.

In addition, the number of accidents involving drivers hitting cyclists and then fleeing has spiked in recent years. Hit-and-run drivers killed four cyclists and severely injured 26 others in 2006 - significantly more than any other year in the past decade.

"There seems to be a natural tension between bicyclists and motorists," said Susan George, town manager of Woodside, who finds the streets in and around her hilly San Mateo County community swarming with cyclists, motorcycle riders, equestrians and drivers out for a good time on weekends and lunch hours.

Groups of dozens or even hundreds of bicyclists sometimes take over the roads, blowing through stoplights and disobeying signs, she said. At the same time, some motorists retaliate aggressively, tailgating the bicyclists, honking at them and trying to force them off the road.

"The majority of cyclists obey the rules, and the motorists, too, but then you get these outlaws," George said. "It's an ongoing battle, and in recent years the tensions have gotten worse."

Berkeley police Sgt. Mary Kusmiss said that in the past two years, her department has noticed an increase in all types of road-rage incidents.

"We get about six calls a month of road-rage cases, of people getting into screaming matches or drivers getting out of their cars and throwing their arms up," she said. "It's not just motorists and cyclists. It can be motorists and pedestrians or motorists and motorists."
Yelling at motorists

Kusmiss said the cases involving bikers can be exacerbated by the fact that in Berkeley, "some cyclists are very political about their cycling: They yell at the motorists to 'Just stop driving.' "

According to the data, when drivers were at fault in an accident, the most common type of violation cited was not giving cyclists the right of way. For bike riders, unsafe speed was the most dangerous violation, followed by riding on the wrong side of the road.

Male cyclists were almost five times more likely to be killed or severely injured than women. Fatalities and severe injury accidents affected all age groups, but riders in their 30s and 40s faired worse than others. Most common fatalities were 48-year-old males.

No one has suggested that cyclists Kristy Gough, 30, of San Leandro and Matt Peterson, 29, of San Francisco who were killed in the March 9 accident on Stevens Canyon Road in Cupertino, were at fault.

Evans, the triathlon coach who regularly trains riders in the hills of San Mateo County and was Gough's coach, said it is often the serious athletic bikers who take the most risks. He said he sees whole clubs of riders zipping through stop signs and failing to slow down.

"You get these guys who think they are Lance Armstrong or something, then they turn around and get themselves killed," Evans said.

Armstrong raised awareness about his fight against cancer with his yellow arm bracelet, and Evans hopes to start a similar bracelet campaign to promote safety among bicyclists, drivers and pedestrians.
Black-and-red armband

Evans has made the prototype of a black-and-red armband that he hopes he and others can distribute to cyclists and motorists in exchange for their promise that they will obey all traffic safety rules. George said she hopes Woodside can be a sponsor for the program.

"On the bracelets, the black is to signify our mourning for those who have been killed, and the red is to signify that you will obey all the traffic laws," said Evans, who said he believes some of the tensions on the roadway arise out of motorists' confusion about not knowing what bicyclists will do at an intersection.

"This is a huge, huge problem, and it is very out of control," he said. "What I want to do is influence cyclists, drivers and motorcyclists to obey the rules of the road."

[randya]

bias in the police reports

'The only good cyclist' (http://www.cars-suck.org/research/cyclists.pdf)

There's also a lot of good information on police and legal system bias against cyclists in Bob Mionske's book, Bicycling and the Law (http://www.amazon.com/Bicycling-Law-Your-Rights-Cyclist/dp/1931382999/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206209507&sr=1-1)

[Bekologist]

unsafe speeds the most siginifcant factor in cyclists at fault in the accident?

clear evidence to me of police bias against bicyclists- I have never, except on ice or in very rare occasions, felt i was exceeding a safe speed on my bicycle.

"unsafe speed of bicyclist" is cop speak for 'motorist failed to yield."

[randya]

The final police report (http://bikeportland.org/2008/01/15/da-no-criminal-negligence-in-jarolimek-case/) on Brett Jarolimek's (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5504057&postcount=52) fatal right hook accident exonerated the garbage truck driver with the lousy driving record and the broken mirror for right-hooking Brett, claiming that Brett was riding 'too fast for conditions' at 21 mph in a 30 mph zone.

[wheel]

agreed

Unsafe speed WTF?

if that is the case then we need to slow the cars down. Because they go faster than the cyclist. Unless they're trying to suggest bad brakes on the bicycle.

by the way I told a wrong way rider with no hands on the handlebar to F**** off as she said good morning.. I need to control myself.

[maddyfish]

My experience with the local cops is that they do not like, and do not understand fast bikes.
I got pulled over for going 30 in a 35, just because the cop was sure that was it was impossible for a bike to go 30 on flat ground. He then informed me I should license my bike.
Most of these accidents could just be listed as the riders fault for R.O.R. (riding on road)

[John E]

What troubles me is the reported 60% increase in bicycle injuries or fatalities for which the motorist was at fault. Those of us who ride legally, visibly, and defensively can rationally, albeit smugly, ignore the 100 incidents per year in which bicyclists were deemed to be at fault, but if the reported trend continues, the number of motorist-at-fault incidents per year will be as large.

I fret about motorist inattention, isolation, distraction, frustration, boredom, and fatigue as much as I worry about the two traditional scourges, drunk and drugged drivers.

[randya]

so that Santa Clara deputy clearly f*cked up and killed two cyclists, and the Bay Area's paper of record responds with an article blaming cyclists, WTF is up with that????

[Daily Commute]

"Unsafe speed" probably means the cop couldn't come up with a real reason to blame the cyclist, so he made something up that's difficult to verify or refute. How many motorists complain, "Those cyclists, they go so darn fast, they really should slow down"?

[UmneyDurak]

so that Santa Clara deputy clearly f*cked up and killed two cyclists, and the Bay Area's paper of record responds with an article blaming cyclists, WTF is up with that????

There seems to be a huge bias against cyclists in Bay Area Media. As for cops, depends on a cop. When I was hit by a car in Santa Clara (seems to be a pattern here) the driver was found at fault (and she was). Police didn't do the "was traveling too fast" B.S. The report said I had the right of way, even listed all the safety stuff I had on like lights, vest, etc, and she failed to yield. Went a long way in helping me to deal with insurance.

[CB HI]

Talk about lazy journalist, 95% of this article was in the paper or a local ABC story before. The author simply added the latest killing of cyclist story and maybe the idea of the arm bands is new. BF discussed the previous article as well, particularly noting the "For bike riders, unsafe speed was the most dangerous violation" BS.

Edit: It may have been this thread, on a local ABC story that is no longer available, but was based on and referenced the almost one year old analysis by The Chronicle.
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=301680&highlight=speed+unsafe

[ghettocruiser]

Unsafe speed WTF?


If a car pulls in front of you and you hit it, you were going too fast to be safe.

If a car comes up behind you and runs you over, you were going too slow to be safe.

If we'd just all learn to ride at a safe speed, there would be no problems....

:D

[shatdow]

I agree that the "unsafe speed" on a bike line is dubious, and I think it should raise more questions than it answers when it appears on an accident report. I can see few situations (dooring or other impacts by the cyclist on peds/stopped objects) where this would be appropriate. If the accident is between a car and a cyclist, unsafe speed should almost never apply, I think.

Randya, thanks for those links, the "Only Good Cyclist" report was particularly intriguing. It confirmed some thoughts I had about possible accident causes and how a cyclist can be at fault. My list included:

* Pulling out suddenly onto the road from a driveway or side street
* Unsafe lane changes, "Swerving" into traffic (though I doubt the second, more on that later)
* Breaking traffic laws (running stops/lights, wrong way riding, drunk riding)
* No lights at night (low visibility)

The only time "unsafe speed" should come into it is when the cyclist has hit a pedestrian or say, a stopped car in the traffic lane; times when a car driver would be held at fault as well for not being able to stop in time. Even then, doorings and hitting a car pulling out into the road suddenly shouldn't be the cyclists fault, because, just like in a car, these type of accidents can be almost unavoidable at anything faster than a crawl.

Now, I strongly agree with that "good cyclist" article about the liklihood of the driver having the only say in the report, especially if there are no witnesses. I can easily see a driver's excuse "I didn't see him! He appeared suddenly out of nowhere!" ballooning into "Unsafe lane change/ Swerving into traffic" on the police report, or something similar. I almost got hit at a 4-way stop once, when I thought a driver to my right saw me (I was there first), but just started going after I entered the intersection. I avoided it, but if I had been hit and injured, taken away from the scene, or too disoriented to remember what happened, what would that lady have said to the officer? She may remember it as she was there first, and I ran the stop sign!

Since bike-car accidents are so lopsided, and the driver usually comes out uninjured while the cyclist is injured or killed, I predict this situation is very comon.

It's a tough scenario to deal with, since most times it's just a he-said she-said story. My feelings are that the car should, from the start, have a greater likihood of fault. If the driver is attentive (ie, not largely at fault), it should be difficult to hit a cyclist in the first place. Maybe not fair; but I feel it's too easy to walk away from than to be held accountable for a bike-car accident. If you're being an attentive driver, you should be able to point out exactly what point they swerved in front of you, or pulled out of a specific driveway, or where you were when they ran that stop. If you can't, you weren't paying attention and are probably covering.

Sorry for the length.

[Daily Commute]

. . .Sorry for the length.
I don't think you need to apologize for thinking in paragraphs instead of sound bites.

[John E]

Regarding "unsafe speeds" for cyclists, I think it is self-evident that a prudent and safe speed in a main travel lane is generally higher than in the adjacent narrow bike lane. For those familiar with La Costa Av. west of Rancho Santa Fe Rd., I find myself staying in the bike lane on the (slow) ascent, but feeling much safer out of the bike lane on the (fast) descent, where I want to be seen by potential right-hookers, right-crossers, left-crossers, et al. I guess that makes me a bike lane fan going up and a hard core vehicular cyclist coming down. :)

[San Rensho]

The article is about fault in death or severe injury collissions between cars and bicycles. The implication is that in ALL bike/car accidents, the cyclists are more often at fault.

Are there any studies that track ALL bike/car collissions? I seam to remember seeing a statistic that cars are at fault in a much larger percentage than cyclists when you look at ALL collissions.

[randya]

Are there any studies that track ALL bike/car collissions? I seam to remember seeing a statistic that cars are at fault in a much larger percentage than cyclists when you look at ALL collissions.

Never going to happen, because many collisions aren't reported (how many people do you know that were doored or right-hooked but not injured; no cops called, no report of any sort filed, not even the standard DMV accident report) and police reports aren't written / filed in many jurisdictions unless the severity of the injuries suffered is quite high. Plus, police bias would also still need to be factored in / out of any such analysis.

[randya]

Regarding "unsafe speeds" for cyclists, I think it is self-evident that a prudent and safe speed in a main travel lane is generally higher than in the adjacent narrow bike lane. For those familiar with La Costa Av. west of Rancho Santa Fe Rd., I find myself staying in the bike lane on the (slow) ascent, but feeling much safer out of the bike lane on the (fast) descent, where I want to be seen by potential right-hookers, right-crossers, left-crossers, et al. I guess that makes me a bike lane fan going up and a hard core vehicular cyclist coming down. :)

There's a lot to be said for bicycle climbing lanes in the slower uphill direction and the deliberate lack of bicycle lanes in the faster downhill direction. A design that's not common but deserves to be applied more frequently.

[Helmet Head]

The final police report (http://bikeportland.org/2008/01/15/da-no-criminal-negligence-in-jarolimek-case/) on Brett Jarolimek's (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5504057&postcount=52) fatal right hook accident exonerated the garbage truck driver with the lousy driving record and the broken mirror for right-hooking Brett, claiming that Brett was riding 'too fast for conditions' at 21 mph in a 30 mph zone.
Passing on the right near the curb at an intersection approach is unsafe, and especially so at 21 mph, even if the speed limit is 30 mph.

Regarding "unsafe speeds" for cyclists, I think it is self-evident that a prudent and safe speed in a main travel lane is generally higher than in the adjacent narrow bike lane. For those familiar with La Costa Av. west of Rancho Santa Fe Rd., I find myself staying in the bike lane on the (slow) ascent, but feeling much safer out of the bike lane on the (fast) descent, where I want to be seen by potential right-hookers, right-crossers, left-crossers, et al. I guess that makes me a bike lane fan going up and a hard core vehicular cyclist coming down. :)
That's right, John. The conditions in "too fast for conditions" includes lateral position. I see bicyclists often riding too fast considering how close they are to the edge of the road, given all the potential hazards that lurk there, and the limited vantage, conspicuousness and maneuvering space that comes from riding there. Of course, bike lanes like the downhill one on La Costa invite cyclists to do exactly that, and they get accustomed to doing it, and so many seem to develop a lack of sensitivity about the safety compromises inherent in riding like that (much like riding in door zones doesn't necessarily feel unsafe to many cyclists).

I know a guy who was riding about 20 mph in the bike lane on Miramar Road, a 45 mph road, and was hit, arguably because he was going too fast for conditions. He was passing three lanes of stopped motor traffic on his left unaware that they were stopped in order to allow an oncoming van to turn left from the center turn lane across their path into a midblock commercial driveway. The van crossed the traffic lanes and was crossing the bike lane when the guy smashed into the side of the van. There was no way he could have avoided it, given his speed and the shortened sight lines.

[Helmet Head]

There's a lot to be said for bicycle climbing lanes in the slower uphill direction and the deliberate lack of bicycle lanes in the faster downhill direction. A design that's not common but deserves to be applied more frequently.
I agree. But such designs are often opposed on the justifiable grounds that they invite wrong way downhill cycling in the one and only bike lane, despite signs and markings discouraging such behavior. That's one of the reasons I support a WOL (*) on the uphill side and a NOL (**) on the downhill side, perhaps with sharrows (***) in the center of the NOL and the margin of the WOL.

(*) WOL = Wide Outside Lane, more than 14 feet wide, preferably 15 or 16 feet.
(**) NOL = Narrow Outside Lane, typically 9-12 feet wide.
(***) sharrow = Shared Lane Marking - a painted/stenciled marking on the pavement that depicts a bicyclists and a chevron/arrow that suggests approximately where a cyclist should ride.

[randya]

Passing on the right near the curb at an intersection approach is unsafe, and especially so at 21 mph, even if the speed limit is 30 mph.

nevertheless, that's the way you're supposed to do it under Oregon law.

[Blue Order]

As a practical matter of personal safety, one could reasonably argue that it's unwise to pass (a right-turning vehicle) on the right.

As a legal matter, Brett was not in violation of the speed law, and was otherwise riding within the law; the driver, who was legally required to yield the right of way to Brett, did not yield the right of way. The driver was in violation of the law, despite the bending-over-backwards-to-exonerate-the driver blame-shifting nonsense the Portland Police Bureau engaged in.

[UmneyDurak]

Oh good I see the media is continuing on their marry cycling smear campaign. I guess that cop who ran down two cyclists has some good connections.

[randya]

HH should read the final police report, linked above; I'm sure he can find half a dozen ways to blame Brett in that report.

:rolleyes:

[buzzman]

This is biased reporting at it's best.

It begins with the statement:

Bicyclists were twice as likely as drivers to be at fault in the nearly 2,000 collisions that killed or severely injured Bay Area bike riders in the past decade, an analysis by The Chronicle shows.

Was the same staff reporter who wrote the article the same one who did the "analysis"? I'd double check these figures for real accuracy. They may not be all that they seem.

Bicycle and safety advocates say the deaths two weeks ago of two cyclists hit by a Santa Clara sheriff's deputy's cruiser should serve as a call to improve relations between cars and bikes on the roadways.

The implication in the above statement is that the cyclists who were killed must have been part of that 60% of cyclists at fault.

And yet buried in the end of the article after we read about how bad cyclists are we get this little tid-bit:

No one has suggested that cyclists Kristy Gough, 30, of San Leandro and Matt Peterson, 29, of San Francisco who were killed in the March 9 accident on Stevens Canyon Road in Cupertino, were at fault.

Since there is no evidence the cyclists were at fault in this particular situation why is it referenced specifically for this article?- what's the correlation?

Anybody else get the idea a little local pressure to keep the cops looking good in an accident that, by the reports of the collision I read, looked like a pretty 100% driver error incident.

In fairness I'd say it's time to do an analysis of accidents involving police cruisers to see how many times they are in violation law and policy when such incidents occur.

[gosmsgo]

Portland's motto should be......

"Sure some people get crushed to death by trucks but look at all these people riding!!!!"

[buzzman]

Portland's motto should be......

"Sure some people get crushed to death by trucks but look at all these people riding!!!!"

huh?

and what should Texas and Florida's motto be? "We kill 'em faster so they don't breed."?

Portland's rider share is substantially higher than other states but their accident/fatality rate is much lower.

I don't understand your comment- is your implication Portland's riders are at a greater risk than those in other cities and states- and what statistical analysis do you have to support such an opinion, if that is indeed the point you are trying to make?

what is the purpose of your comment in the midst of the on-going discussion of this thread?- it reads more like a non-sequitur to me than a contribution- is that your point? I don't get it. Please illuminate.

[bragi]

I don't doubt police bias in police reports- I've been pulled over on my bike by police a few times simply because the officer didn't like bikes- nor do I doubt that some motorists behave aggresively towards bicyclists out of sheer frustration with the general traffic situation. However, I do not at all have a hard time believing that, in a majority of accidents, the cyclist is at fault. I can't even count the times I have stopped at a red light only to see other cyclists blow through the intersection with only a glance to check for approaching traffic. I've seen other cyclists jump from the street to the sidewalk and back to the street in such a quick, seemingly random manner that I can well imagine motorists' confusion. I've also seen cyclists at four-way stops expecting to be treated as pedestrians; that is, not waiting their turn, but proceding through the intersection almost as soon as they get there. Let's not be too biased ourselves. The majority of cyclists follow the rules of the road, but a significant percentage, either through ignorance or apathy, do not, and one of the consequences of that is that they get injured or killed. Another consequence is that drivers, when they see a cyclist, automatically assume that he or she is a lot like the idiot that they had to deal with a few days earlier.

[randya]

I don't doubt police bias in police reports- I've been pulled over on my bike by police a few times simply because the officer didn't like bikes- nor do I doubt that some motorists behave aggresively towards bicyclists out of sheer frustration with the general traffic situation. However, I do not at all have a hard time believing that, in a majority of accidents, the cyclist is at fault. I can't even count the times I have stopped at a red light only to see other cyclists blow through the intersection with only a glance to check for approaching traffic. I've seen other cyclists jump from the street to the sidewalk and back to the street in such a quick, seemingly random manner that I can well imagine motorists' confusion. I've also seen cyclists at four-way stops expecting to be treated as pedestrians; that is, not waiting their turn, but proceding through the intersection almost as soon as they get there. Let's not be too biased ourselves. The majority of cyclists follow the rules of the road, but a significant percentage, either through ignorance or apathy, do not, and one of the consequences of that is that they get injured or killed. Another consequence is that drivers, when they see a cyclist, automatically assume that he or she is a lot like the idiot that they had to deal with a few days earlier.
you sure are making a lot of assumptions here. plus, confusing and yes even pissing off motorists is not illegal in and of itself, and is completely independent from crashing into them. And if you're saying that motorists who dislike bicyclists' behavior are deliberately hitting cyclists to 'teach them a lesson' that's yet another thing in which case the motorist would be at fault (but could make up any lie that they wanted when questioned by the police).

[noisebeam]

nevertheless, that's the way you're supposed to do it under Oregon law.

One is supposed to travel at 21mph in a narrow lane adjacent to stopped/slower traffic that might turn across you path?

Al

[Helmet Head]

The final police report (http://bikeportland.org/2008/01/15/da-no-criminal-negligence-in-jarolimek-case/) on Brett Jarolimek's (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5504057&postcount=52) fatal right hook accident exonerated the garbage truck driver with the lousy driving record and the broken mirror for right-hooking Brett, claiming that Brett was riding 'too fast for conditions' at 21 mph in a 30 mph zone.Passing on the right near the curb at an intersection approach is unsafe, and especially so at 21 mph, even if the speed limit is 30 mph.
nevertheless, that's the way you're supposed to do it under Oregon law.
One is supposed to travel at 21mph in a narrow lane adjacent to stopped/slower traffic that might turn across you path?

Al
Do not underestimate the role that bike lanes alone play in causing even a traffic cycling savvy guy like Randya to think this (that it's normal and not "too fast for conditions" to pass potential right-turners on the right, much less at 21 mph). This is what many experienced cyclists seem to think (judging by how they ride) even in CA where, as you know, the law requires right turning motorists to merge into the bike lane before turning right.

If someone passes them on their left and then begins to slow to and below their speed, they just pass them on the right, even as they are approaching a place where the overtaker may be turning right. As far as I can tell, it doesn't occur to them that there is anything wrong with passing on the right like that, and I think the presence of the bike lane goes a long way towards inhibiting them from sensing this.

[bragi]

you sure are making a lot of assumptions here. plus, confusing and yes even pissing off motorists is not illegal in and of itself, and is completely independent from crashing into them. And if you're saying that motorists who dislike bicyclists' behavior are deliberately hitting cyclists to 'teach them a lesson' that's yet another thing in which case the motorist would be at fault (but could make up any lie that they wanted when questioned by the police).


Respectfully, I don't think I'm making any unwarranted assumptions here at all. I'm not saying that many motorists deliberately run into cyclists (if they do, they're committing a serious crime, which is way beyond the scope of what I'm discussing here, which are accidents). What I am saying is that, in more instances than many of us care to admit, cyclists' own behavior is the cause of the accidents that injure them. Not always, but at least as often as not. They do something stupid, and then the second law of motion does the rest. And, please, be reasonable: confusing motorists is not "completely independent" from colliding with them. Car drivers who confuse one another crash all the time; why should bikes be any different? That's one of the main reasons we have have traffic laws: so everyone has a clearer idea of what's going to happen next.

[Helmet Head]

As a practical matter of personal safety, one could reasonably argue that it's unwise to pass (a right-turning vehicle) on the right.

As a legal matter, Brett was not in violation of the speed law, and was otherwise riding within the law; the driver, who was legally required to yield the right of way to Brett, did not yield the right of way. The driver was in violation of the law, despite the bending-over-backwards-to-exonerate-the driver blame-shifting nonsense the Portland Police Bureau engaged in.

The basic speed law says you must operate at or below the speed that is safe for the given conditions. If the leftmost lane is stopped on a freeway posted at 65 mph, is it is safe to drive at 65 mph in the adjacent lane? These are judgment calls, but I think it's certainly arguably that 65 mph is too fast for such conditions.

Similarly, riding near the curb in a bike lane at 21 mph while passing a slowing potential right-turner in the adjacent traffic lane on your left is also arguably too fast for such conditions.

Even if you disagree - you think 21 mph not too fast for those conditions - I'm disappointed that guys like you and Randya don't even seem to see how it's arguable that it is too fast and in violation of the basic speed law.


When Speeding Isn't Speeding
The "Basic" Speed Law

"Absolute" speed states set an upper limit, above which your speed is considered illegal. Drive one mile over the limit and you are a law breaker. But these states also have a way to ticket you when you are driving under the speed limit if an officer concludes your speed was unsafe. Called the "basic" speed law, it prohibits driving at an unsafe speed, even if that speed is below the posted limit.

In all states, tickets for driving under the speed limit, but too fast to be safe, are often referred to as "driving too fast for conditions." For example, driving exactly at the 65 mph posted limit on the freeway would not be smart amidst slower and heavy traffic, in a dense fog, or in a driving rainstorm or blizzard.

The difference between fighting one of these tickets and a speeding ticket for going over the speed limit is that here the prosecution has the burden of proving you were driving unsafely. (Again, that's because the posted speed limit is presumed to be safe.) This means the officer must testify that, given the unusual road, weather, or traffic conditions, your below-the-limit speed was unsafe. This can be tough to do unless you were involved in an accident, since the cop may be hard put to come up with enough hard evidence to rebut the presumption established by the posted limit.

Police most often rely on the "basic" speed law after an accident. They reason that you were driving too fast, no matter how slow you were driving, because you were in an accident. However, you do not have to despair if you were in an accident and are charged with violating the "basic" law for driving at an unsafe below-the-limit speed. The fact that you've had an accident is not absolute proof that you were driving unsafely. Accidents, after all, are not always caused by your violating the law. Often they are caused when another driver screwed up.
...

public.findlaw.com/traffic-ticket-violation-law/fighting-traffic-ticket/speeding-not-speeding(2).html (http://public.findlaw.com/traffic-ticket-violation-law/fighting-traffic-ticket/speeding-not-speeding(2).html)

[Blue Order]

The basic speed law says you must operate at or below the speed that is safe for the given conditions. If the leftmost lane is stopped on a freeway posted at 65 mph, is it is safe to drive at 65 mph in the adjacent lane? These are judgment calls, but I think it's certainly arguably that 65 mph is too fast for such conditions.

Similarly, riding near the curb in a bike lane at 21 mph while passing a slowing potential right-turner in the adjacent traffic lane on your left is also arguably too fast for such conditions.

Even if you disagree - you think 21 mph not too fast for those conditions - I'm disappointed that guys like you and Randya don't even seem to see how it's arguable that it is too fast and in violation of the basic speed law.I'm aware of the basic speed law. Arguably, traveling at 21 MPH in a 35 MPH zone could be a violation of the basic speed law, depending on conditions.

However, the law does not require you to anticipate the illegal actions of other vehicle operators. Brett was not required to slow down when entering an intersection, just in case somebody might run a red light. Similarly, Brett was not required to anticipate that the truck driver would turn against his right of way.

And in fact, the truck driver gave every indication that he was observing the law-- he passed Brett, and he stopped at the intersection, with his turn signal on. To an approaching cyclist, the truck driver appeared to be following the law, which requires him to stop, with his turn signal on, and yield the right of way to any approaching cyclists. There was no indication that the truck driver was not going to yield the right of way.

Therefore, absent a legal duty to anticipate illegal behavior, there's no argument to be made that Brett was riding too fast for conditions.

[randya]

Do not underestimate the role that bike lanes alone play in causing even a traffic cycling savvy guy like Randya to think this (that it's normal and not "too fast for conditions" to pass potential right-turners on the right, much less at 21 mph). This is what many experienced cyclists seem to think (judging by how they ride) even in CA where, as you know, the law requires right turning motorists to merge into the bike lane before turning right.

If someone passes them on their left and then begins to slow to and below their speed, they just pass them on the right, even as they are approaching a place where the overtaker may be turning right. As far as I can tell, it doesn't occur to them that there is anything wrong with passing on the right like that, and I think the presence of the bike lane goes a long way towards inhibiting them from sensing this.

now you've gone and developed the bad habit of putting words into other people's mouths, and actions as well. Where have I ever stated that I personally would perform such a pass in such a manner?

:eek:

:rolleyes:

[noisebeam]

Where have I ever stated that I would perform such a pass in such a manner?


You haven't and HH did say you would either.

Al

[randya]

Police most often rely on the "basic" speed law after an accident. They reason that you were driving too fast, no matter how slow you were driving, because you were in an accident. However, you do not have to despair if you were in an accident and are charged with violating the "basic" law for driving at an unsafe below-the-limit speed. The fact that you've had an accident is not absolute proof that you were driving unsafely. Accidents, after all, are not always caused by your violating the law. Often they are caused when another driver screwed up.

The garbage truck driver screwed up when he turned right, across the bike lane and into Brett's path, compounded by the fact that he did not have a properly functioning right-side mirror that would have enabled him to see Brett's approach.

[Blue Order]

Police most often rely on the "basic" speed law after an accident. They reason that you were driving too fast, no matter how slow you were driving, because you were in an accident. However, you do not have to despair if you were in an accident and are charged with violating the "basic" law for driving at an unsafe below-the-limit speed. The fact that you've had an accident is not absolute proof that you were driving unsafely. Accidents, after all, are not always caused by your violating the law. Often they are caused when another driver screwed up.The garbage truck driver screwed up when he turned right, across the bike lane and into Brett's path, compounded by the fact that he did not have a properly functioning right-side mirror that would have enabled him to see Brett's approach.You're forgetting that in Bizarro world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizarro_World), the cyclist is always wrong.

[Helmet Head]

now you've gone and developed the bad habit of putting words into other people's mouths, and actions as well. Where have I ever stated that I personally would perform such a pass in such a manner?

:eek:

:rolleyes:
No, as Al has also pointed out, now you've gone and developed the bad habit of putting words into other people's mouths. Where have I ever written anything that stated or implied that you personally would perform such a pass in such a manner?

:eek:

Nice dodge.

:rolleyes:

[Helmet Head]

The garbage truck driver screwed up when he turned right, across the bike lane and into Brett's path, compounded by the fact that he did not have a properly functioning right-side mirror that would have enabled him to see Brett's approach.
I'm not denying that. But nothing the truck driver did wrong has anything to do with the objection that you and Blue Order have to the contention that the cyclist was riding too fast for conditions in violation of the basic speed law.

[Blue Order]

I'm not denying that. But nothing the truck driver did wrong has anything to do with the objection that you and Blue Order have to the contention that the cyclist was riding too fast for conditions in violation of the basic speed law.Sure it does-- it has everything to do with it.

[Helmet Head]

I'm aware of the basic speed law. Arguably, traveling at 21 MPH in a 35 MPH zone could be a violation of the basic speed law, depending on conditions.

However, the law does not require you to anticipate the illegal actions of other vehicle operators. Brett was not required to slow down when entering an intersection, just in case somebody might run a red light. Similarly, Brett was not required to anticipate that the truck driver would turn against his right of way.

And in fact, the truck driver gave every indication that he was observing the law-- he passed Brett, and he stopped at the intersection, with his turn signal on. To an approaching cyclist, the truck driver appeared to be following the law, which requires him to stop, with his turn signal on, and yield the right of way to any approaching cyclists. There was no indication that the truck driver was not going to yield the right of way.

Therefore, absent a legal duty to anticipate illegal behavior, there's no argument to be made that Brett was riding too fast for conditions.
Blue Order, I think you've stated the case as clearly and persuasively as it could be made. But 21 mph is still arguably too fast for the condition of a cyclist legally passing on the right a truck driver stopped apparently in order to legally yield to the cyclist before turning right, and it's important that we convey this within the cycling community.

21 mph is about as fast as most cyclists could sustain (assuming this is not a downhill), and riding at that speed in these classic right hook conditions is too fast, and clearly not exhibiting appropriate care for the potentially hazardous situation (just as driving 65 mph adjacent to a stopped lane on the freeway is not exhibiting appropriate care for that situation). This is exactly the kind of context in which the basic speed law is supposed to apply, and also why traffic cycling instructors teach not to pass on the right, much less doing it at that speed at a place where the vehicle can and might turn right. It's not requiring you to anticipate the illegal action of another driver, it's about requiring you to anticipate reasonably likely behavior of other drivers.

If you're stopped in the leftmost freeway lane, you are required to signal and look back to make sure it's clear as much as you reasonably can before merging right into the adjacent lane.

The reason driving in that lane at 65 mph adjacent to a lane of stopped traffic is in violation of the basic speed law is not because you need to anticipate the potential illegal behavior of someone suddenly pulling out, but because of the reasonably likely behavior of someone wanting to pull out and not noticing you approaching because you're still so far back just a few seconds before getting there at 65 mph.

Similarly, the reason that cycling in the bike lane at 21 mph when approaching a vehicle signaling right at an intersection is in violation of the basic speed law is not because you need to anticipate the potential illegal behavior of that driver suddenly turning right, but because of the reasonably likely behavior of that driver not noticing you approaching because you're still so far back just a few seconds before getting there at 21 mph, and suddenly turning right in front of, or into, you.

Note that 21 mph is over 30 feet per second. The driver needs to check all the normal places for potentially conflicting vehicular traffic, as well as the bike lane, before turning right, and there is nothing that says he needs to check the bike lane last right before he goes. The bike lane could be clear for over 200 feet when he checks it, and if he hesitates for just a few seconds to make sure it's clear in other directions before proceeding he could still easily cut off the 21 mph cyclist when he turns right. It is simply not reasonably safe to pass at that speed in that situation. I mean, there's a very good basic reason we don't do it, and one way to put is because it's in violation of the basic speed law.





But nothing the truck driver did wrong has anything to do with the objection that you and Blue Order have to the contention that the cyclist was riding too fast for conditions in violation of the basic speed law.
Sure it does-- it has everything to do with it.
How so?

Nothing the truck driver did wrong has anything to do with the issue of whether the cyclist was riding too fast because 21 mph would have been too fast for the conditions even if the cyclist lucked out and the truck driver did nothing wrong, noticed the cyclist and yielded properly (note: passing a cyclist riding along in a bike lane does not constitute noticing the cyclist, not by a long shot).

The cyclist was in violation of the basic speed law not because the truck driver turned right without noticing the 21 mph cyclist, but because he might have done that (which would have been true whether he actually yielded or not - and thus has nothing to do with whether the truck did anything wrong).

[randya]

It was a downhill and the truck driver couldn't have checked because his broken mirror was improperly positioned.

[Blue Order]

Blue Order, I think you've stated the case as clearly and persuasively as it could be made. But 21 mph is still arguably too fast for the condition of a cyclist legally passing on the right a truck driver stopped apparently in order to legally yield to the cyclist before turning right, and it's important that we convey this within the cycling community.I think there's a significant, but perhaps subtle difference between what's "legal" and what's "safe." It's legal to pass vehicles on the right here in Oregon. At intersections, I don't think it's safe, and so I hold back. Nothing in the law requires me to hold back. Similarly, when I drive, and approach an intersection at which I have the right of way, I back off the gas as I enter the intersection, just in case somebody is running the red light. Again, nothing in the law requires me to back off the gas, and in either situation, if another driver violates the law, either by turning right against my right of way, or by running the red light, it is the other driver who is legally at fault, even if I fail to take a simple safety precaution.

I think it's one thing to advise cyclists to take safety precautions above and beyond what the law expects of them. I think it's another thing entirely for the police and Helmet Head to absolve a law-breaking driver of his liability for the crash his law-breaking has caused, and to shift the blame to the cyclist who was riding within the law. That is inexcusable.

21 mph is about as fast as most cyclists could sustain (assuming this is not a downhill)It is a downhill, and Brett was ahead of the garbage truck until it passed him on the downhill.

and riding at that speed in these classic right hook conditions is too fast, and clearly not exhibiting appropriate care for the potentially hazardous situation (just as driving 65 mph adjacent to a stopped lane on the freeway is not exhibiting appropriate care for that situation). This is exactly the kind of context in which the basic speed law is supposed to apply, and also why traffic cycling instructors teach not to pass on the right, much less doing it at that speed at a place where the vehicle can and might turn right. It's not requiring you to anticipate the illegal action of another driver, it's about requiring you to anticipate reasonably likely behavior of other drivers.Wrong, wrong, wrong. The driver cannot legally make that turn. Therefore, what you're talking about IS requiring the cyclist to anticipate the illegal behavior of the driver. And because the law specifically absolves drivers of that responsibility to anticipate illegal behavior (unless it is plainly obvious that the driver will violate the law), there is no "potentially hazardous situation" that brings the basic speed law into play.

If you're stopped in the leftmost freeway lane, you are required to signal and look back to make sure it's clear as much as you reasonably can before merging right into the adjacent lane.Actually, you're required to signal and look back whether you're stopped or moving.

The reason driving in that lane at 65 mph adjacent to a lane of stopped traffic is in violation of the basic speed law is not because you need to anticipate the potential illegal behavior of someone suddenly pulling out, but because of the reasonably likely behavior of someone wanting to pull out and not noticing you approaching because you're still so far back just a few seconds before getting there at 65 mph.The driver who is stopped has a legal duty to wait until he can make the lane change safely. If the driver violates that legal duty, he is still at fault, even if the driver who collides with him is also at fault for "speeding." If the driver who is stopped is signaling his intention to change lanes, there may be a duty to approach with caution. If there is a line of cars stopped, there may be a duty to anticipate the reasonably likely behavior of somebody pulling into your lane. If you're traveling on a residential street and children are playing ball at the curb, there is absolutely a duty to anticipate the reasonably likely behavior that one of them may run into the street after the ball, and to adjust your speed accordingly.

If you're traveling through an intersection, there's no duty whatsoever to anticipate that somebody will run the red light, and there's no duty to anticipate that somebody will make a turn across your right of way.

Similarly, the reason that cycling in the bike lane at 21 mph when approaching a vehicle signaling right at an intersection is in violation of the basic speed law is not because you need to anticipate the potential illegal behavior of that driver suddenly turning right, but because of the reasonably likely behavior of that driver not noticing you approaching because you're still so far back just a few seconds before getting there at 21 mph, and suddenly turning right in front of, or into, you.That "not noticing you" part? That's illegal. Any way you try to slice this, Helmet Head, you're attempting to absolve the driver of his violations[s] of the law and shift the blame to the cyclist, just as the PPB did.

Note that 21 mph is over 30 feet per second. The driver needs to check all the normal places for potentially conflicting vehicular traffic, as well as the bike lane, before turning right, and there is nothing that says he needs to check the bike lane last right before he goes.A driver can turn across a lane without looking before he proceeds, and he's not both in violation of the law, and negligent? :lol:

The bike lane could be clear for over 200 feet when he checks it, and if he hesitates for just a few seconds to make sure it's clear in other directions before proceeding he could still easily cut off the 21 mph cyclist when he turns right.It's illegal to proceed across somebody's right of way if they are approaching so close as to make it unsafe to proceed. It's illegal to proceed without keeping a proper lookout. It's illegal to fail to yield to bikes in the bike lane. It's not illegal, and it's not negligent, to pass on the right in the bike lane. Perhaps not wise, but definitely not illegal.

It is simply not reasonably safe to pass at that speed in that situation. I mean, there's a very good basic reason we don't do it, and one way to put is because it's in violation of the basic speed law.There's a very good basic reason engineers build bridges, and lawyers practice law, and it is applicable in this case. The basic speed law is not.

[Blue Order]

But nothing the truck driver did wrong has anything to do with the objection that you and Blue Order have to the contention that the cyclist was riding too fast for conditions in violation of the basic speed law.Sure it does-- it has everything to do with it.How so?Because the truck driver appeared to be observing the law, and the cyclist was under no legal obligation to anticipate that the truck driver would violate the law. Therefore, there was no "unsafe condition" that would bring the basic speed law into play.


Nothing the truck driver did wrong has anything to do with the issue of whether the cyclist was riding too fast because 21 mph would have been too fast for the conditions even if the cyclist lucked out and the truck driver did nothing wrong, noticed the cyclist and yielded properly (note: passing a cyclist riding along in a bike lane does not constitute noticing the cyclist, not by a long shot).

The cyclist was in violation of the basic speed law not because the truck driver turned right without noticing the 21 mph cyclist, but because he might have done that (which would have been true whether he actually yielded or not - and thus has nothing to do with whether the truck did anything wrong).That's not the law.

[Helmet Head]

Blue Order, you don't seem to be distinguishing the difference between entering/crossing an intersection at 21 mph in a real traffic lane that is not to the right of a traffic lane from which right turns are allowed and entering/crossing an intersection at 21 mph in a bike lane that is to the right of a traffic lane from which right turns are allowed.

The law may not make an explicit distinction either, but it does implicitly in terms of how reasonably expectable behavior is the standard, which is also fundamental to the basic speed law.

Anyway, this illustrates a big problem with bike lanes - they require that drivers operate in a manner that is contrary to the rules of the road they use on roads without bike lanes. In particular, they require that drivers turning right remember to check for and yield to through traffic on their right before turning right, which is an abnormal traffic behavior.

[Blue Order]

Blue Order, you don't seem to be distinguishing the difference between crossing an intersection at 21 mph in a real traffic lane that is not to the right of a traffic from which right turns are allowed and crossing an intersection at 21 mph in a bike lane that is to the right of a traffic lane from which right turns are allowed.

The law may not make an explicit distinction either, but it does implicitly in terms of how reasonably expectable behavior is the standard, which is also fundamental to the basic speed law.Bicycles are real vehicles, and the bicycle lane is a real traffic lane.

Unless vehicles turning left have their own traffic signal, vehicles turning left at an intersection must yield the right of way to oncoming vehicles, and failure to do so is a violation of the law. No "I didn't see him," no "I thought I could make it," no "I looked a minute ago but didn't look just before I turned." If you fail to yield, you're in violation.

If a vehicle is making a right turn at an intersection, and there is a bike lane to the right of that vehicle, similar rules apply, and the driver's excuses are just as irrelevant, as is the basic speed law.

[Helmet Head]

Bicycles are real vehicles, and the bicycle lane is a real traffic lane.

Unless vehicles turning left have their own traffic signal, vehicles turning left at an intersection must yield the right of way to oncoming vehicles, and failure to do so is a violation of the law. No "I didn't see him," no "I thought I could make it," no "I looked a minute ago but didn't look just before I turned." If you fail to yield, you're in violation.

If a vehicle is making a right turn at an intersection, and there is a bike lane to the right of that vehicle, similar rules apply, and the driver's excuses are just as irrelevant, as is the basic speed law.
Interesting that you find analogy in the two types of situations.

Checking for and yielding to oncoming through traffic prior to turning left across their path is normal traffic behavior.

Checking for and yielding to same-direction through traffic on your right prior to legally turning right across their path is abnormal traffic behavior.

[Blue Order]

Interesting that you find analogy in the two types of situations.

Checking for and yielding to oncoming through traffic prior to turning left across their path is normal traffic behavior.

Checking for and yielding to same-direction through traffic on your right prior to legally turning right across their path is abnormal traffic behavior.Not in Oregon-- it's the law here.

[Allister]

And in fact, the truck driver gave every indication that he was observing the law-- he passed Brett, and he stopped at the intersection, with his turn signal on. To an approaching cyclist, the truck driver appeared to be following the law, which requires him to stop, with his turn signal on, and yield the right of way to any approaching cyclists. There was no indication that the truck driver was not going to yield the right of way.

Personally, in those circumstances, I'd let the truck make it's turn, either by sitting behind, or passing on the other side (not normally ideal with trucks wide turn radius). I understand the guy was an experienced rider, so I figure there was more to it than that. I'm still struggling to see how this could happen to an experienced cyclist. Right hooks are surely a common enough threat to be wary of them irrespective of what the law says.

Therefore, absent a legal duty to anticipate illegal behavior, there's no argument to be made that Brett was riding too fast for conditions.

Indeed. 'Faster than the truck driver thought he was going', is not the same as 'too fast for conditions.'