Advocacy & Safety - Woman killed when struck by bicyclist

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bike23-2008oct23,0,6821327.story



Woman killed when struck by bicyclist in Pacific Palisades
The woman was crossing the street on Palisades Drive when hit by a teenager bicycling to band practice.
By Andrew Blankstein
10:15 AM PDT, October 22, 2008
A woman died this morning after being hit by a teenage bicyclist in Pacific Palisades, Los Angeles police said.

The woman, who was 70, was crossing the street in the 600 block of Palisades Drive just north of Sunset Boulevard shortly before 7 a.m. when she was hit by the 16-year-old boy riding his bicycle.

The boy, a student at Palisades High School, was on his way to band practice when the accident occurred, said Lt. Kat Thomas of the Los Angeles Police Department's West L.A. division.

"He's just devastated," Thomas said of the boy, who sustained cuts and bruises.

It was not immediately known how fast the boy was traveling, but it was still dark outside when the accident occurred. Authorities also did not know if the woman suffered fatal injuries when she was struck or when she fell to the ground.

The woman, who was not immediately identified pending notification of her family, was pronounced dead at the scene. LAPD asks anyone with information to call its West L.A. traffic division at (213) 473-0222.I recall a few people here stating they didn't believe it was possible for a cyclist to strike and kill someone--this argument was used as a justification for cycling past stopped schoolbuses dropping off children (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=470083). Here's one more reason to reconsider such tactics.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bike23-2008oct23,0,6821327.story



I recall a few people here stating they didn't believe it was possible for a cyclist to strike and kill someone--this argument was used as a justification for cycling past stopped schoolbuses dropping off children. Perhaps it might be a good idea to reconsider such tactics.

something similar happened in portland a while back.

but still, these are the exceptions, not the rule. usually bikes don't kill people. cars do.

Something like that happened in Melbourne. It's why I have the sig I do. It can and does happen, and you don't see it happen much mainly because there aren't that many bicyclists out there yet.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bike23-2008oct23,0,6821327.story

I recall a few people here stating they didn't believe it was possible for a cyclist to strike and kill someone--this argument was used as a justification for cycling past stopped schoolbuses dropping off children (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=470083). Here's one more reason to reconsider such tactics.

It does happen occasionally. Bike-ped can be a brutal collision. Typically the pedestrian walks off the curb in front of a bicyclist who has the right of way. Often the pedestrian does this without looking at all, as they hear no cars coming and decide, perhaps subconsciously, that they don't need to look. Of course, even if they look, it can be difficult for a ped to notice a bicyclist coming just as it is difficult for drivers to notice bicyclists. I'd guess that when a rare death occurs it most likely is not the direct result of the collision but of the victim's hitting their head on the pavement. I'd also guess that many more pedestrians die from head injuries after tripping and falling or slipping than from collisions with bikes. But I don't feel like looking that up right now. Research project for someone.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bike23-2008oct23,0,6821327.story

I recall a few people here stating they didn't believe it was possible for a cyclist to strike and kill someone--this argument was used as a justification for cycling past stopped schoolbuses dropping off children (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=470083). Here's one more reason to reconsider such tactics.

:raises hand:

You're mostly talking about me I think. And yes I maintain that it's nearly impossible to kill someone when you're riding at around 5 mph as was stated in that thread you cited.

It happened a few years ago here in DC. Cold winter night led to a collision between two older gentlemen (50s and 60s). The story as I recall is the pedestrian hit his head when he fell to to the floor. -- I didn't hear anyone argue for pedestrian helmets, BTW -- At least in the public papers, they never discussed who was at fault and/or had right of way.

I write a cold winter night led to the collision since it was suggested that everyone was in a hurry due to the bitter cold.

As I recall, in the case that Invisiblehand mentions the newspaper coverage said that the last time a pedestrian had been killed in the area by a collision with a cyclist was 26 years earlier. In the DC area over 400 people a year are killed in automobile accidents, so over 10,000 people were killed by automobiles since the last time someone was killed by a bicycle.

That's why bicycle fatalities make the paper but automobile fatalities don't unless there is something noteworthy about the case.

Over 40,000 deaths a year caused by motor vehicles vs ? by cyclists? Not to mention the issue of DUI...

Aaron:)

Over 40,000 deaths a year caused by motor vehicles vs ? by cyclists? Not to mention the issue of DUI...

Aaron:)im pretty sure riding a bicycle drunk would also increase the risk of collision

Last year in Boston a woman was struck by a wrong-way cyclist on a one-way street who broke her arm. The ******* biker pretty much yelled 'sorry' and rode off without stopping - just about everything we would hate in a driver who did the same.

I know a guy that was killed as a pedestrian by a cyclist. Happened right down the street from where I lived at school (Isla Vista).

Strangely enough, I also know a cyclist who went head-on with a motorcycle (they were both taking the best-line through the corner, but in opposite directions). They both walked just fine with not a scratch.

As I recall, in the case that Invisiblehand mentions the newspaper coverage said that the last time a pedestrian had been killed in the area by a collision with a cyclist was 26 years earlier. In the DC area over 400 people a year are killed in automobile accidents, so over 10,000 people were killed by automobiles since the last time someone was killed by a bicycle.

That's why bicycle fatalities make the paper but automobile fatalities don't unless there is something noteworthy about the case.

That is an interesting thought. But anecdotally speaking, it seems like most auto fatalities do make the paper/news. I don't recall the cyclist/pedestrian fatality report as being sensationalized. What do you recall DC?

This is about as rare as a fatal MUP accident.

We had a pedestrain/bike accident on the local MUP a few years ago. The cyclist died.

-i stop for any school-bus when the red lights are flashing, slow down when yellow. it's somewhat of a pita, but it is the law (Vehicular Bicycle-VB)!

-i wonder if the tuba player/student was VB (riding in same direction-with traffic, observing laws of the road), if riding at dusk/dark, did he have lights on, and was the pedestrian j-walking?

-not to remove from the tradgety of the OP article reporting incident that resulted in age 70 female's death, but it is ironic in how the reporting seem to circumvent more common events/fatalities and center on spectaculars. it's the story that makes the sale?

be carefull out there, and ride with our law (VB).

Over 40,000 deaths a year caused by motor vehicles vs ? by cyclists? Not to mention the issue of DUI...

Aaron:)

Oh, well that makes it alright then.

I don't recall the cyclist/pedestrian fatality report as being sensationalized. What do you recall DC?

The cyclist/pedestrian story was one paragraph, maybe two, inside the metro section. Almost no details.


But anecdotally speaking, it seems like most auto fatalities do make the paper/news.

There's no way the Post covers 400 auto fatalities a year.

:raises hand:

You're mostly talking about me I think. And yes I maintain that it's nearly impossible to kill someone when you're riding at around 5 mph as was stated in that thread you cited.

Wait - you aren't actually trying to argue that because you don't think that you can kill someone with a bike at 5mph you don't have to stop for a school bus????? Your convenience is more important than a child's safety?

You can obviously operate a computer, so you can't possibly be that stupid!

I'm worried more about pedestrian collisions than vehicle collisions. Why? Because a pedestrian will think nothing of looking you in the eye as you approach them in the middle of a block then stepping off the curb right in front of you expecting you to stop immediately.

I'm worried more about pedestrian collisions than vehicle collisions. Why? Because a pedestrian will think nothing of looking you in the eye as you approach them in the middle of a block then stepping off the curb right in front of you expecting you to stop immediately.

Then don't ride in the gutter.

(I'm spoiled; not many cities design streets specifically as 30-foot bike routes (with local residential traffic) that parallel the busier arterials, so cyclists can easily take-the-lane anywhere without inconveniencing drivers).

What do you mean by gutter? I ride a minimum of 1 meter out from the curb. I encounter pedestrians stepping out without looking in both residential and main areterial streets.

30' wide bike routes? nice.

Wait - you aren't actually trying to argue that because you don't think that you can kill someone with a bike at 5mph you don't have to stop for a school bus????? Your convenience is more important than a child's safety?

You can obviously operate a computer, so you can't possibly be that stupid!

Wait...what? Safety decrees that when you get off a bus, you wait until the bus pulls away to try and cross the street, so you can see what is coming behind the bus. If kids are wandering off the school bus and immediately crossing the road in front of the bus, someone needs to teach their kids better.

^^No. The time to cross a street after departing a school bus is while the bus has traffic stopped. Not all bus stops are located at crosswalks and intersections. In these cases crossing after the bus has pulled away could be jaywalking, and is certainly more dangerous while traffic is moving.

Of course the child should be taught to check for moving traffic even if the stopped bus is present, because there is no telling when a complete fool is going come along and try to drive around a stopped school bus.

Oh, well that makes it alright then.

Absolutely...I was trying to make the point that the media sensationalizes things like this, but seems to complete ignore the fact that over 40,000 people are killed via motor vehicles every year, not to mention the 2.9 million that are injured.

Aaron:)

Wait...what? Safety decrees that when you get off a bus, you wait until the bus pulls away to try and cross the street, so you can see what is coming behind the bus. If kids are wandering off the school bus and immediately crossing the road in front of the bus, someone needs to teach their kids better.

Maybe it's different in Canada, but here in the states the school bus will maintain it's position until the children have crossed the street. That's why the buses have the blinking lights and stop sign.

Wait - you aren't actually trying to argue that because you don't think that you can kill someone with a bike at 5mph you don't have to stop for a school bus????? Your convenience is more important than a child's safety?

You can obviously operate a computer, so you can't possibly be that stupid!

I pretty much said everything I need to say about that in the thread cited by the OP... And yeah, I stand behind what I said in that thread.

I pretty much said everything I need to say about that in the thread cited by the OP... And yeah, I stand behind what I said in that thread.

Standing behind something thats so blatantly wrong doesn't make it right.

Standing behind something thats so blatantly wrong doesn't make it right.

Of course not. Logic and sound reasoning makes it right :thumb:

Wait...what? Safety decrees that when you get off a bus, you wait until the bus pulls away to try and cross the street, so you can see what is coming behind the bus. If kids are wandering off the school bus and immediately crossing the road in front of the bus, someone needs to teach their kids better.

You're kidding right? You're suggesting that if you pass a bus on the right and you collide with someone stepping off it's their fault?

Oh well, at least you're in Vancouver, and I don't have to worry about you showing up on my commute.

Of course not. Logic and sound reasoning makes it right :thumb:

Which your argument has none of.

From this post and the previous post, it is apparent that you think your need to possibly save 5-10 sec on your ride is infinitely greater than a) the safety of children b) traffic law c) the general impression of cyclists by drivers, which has the possibility of influencing drivers when they encounter cyclists in future situations.

I'm happy to say I have never encountered this during my riding. I think this would be cause to chase the offending cyclist down utilize 'bike pump justice'

Which your argument has none of.

From this post and the previous post, it is apparent that you think your need to possibly save 5-10 sec on your ride is infinitely greater than a) the safety of children b) traffic law c) the general impression of cyclists by drivers, which has the possibility of influencing drivers when they encounter cyclists in future situations.

I'm happy to say I have never encountered this during my riding. I think this would be cause to chase the offending cyclist down utilize 'bike pump justice'

Did you read the thread cited by the OP?

In that thread I stated that no child was put in danger by passing a stopped bus (with lights on) ten feet on the right, while no child was actually present. I'm not anxious to save 5 or 10 or 60 or 120 seconds, I was just saying that the OP of the bus thread didn't do anything drastically wrong since no children were in any danger.

Part of my commute is on a MUP and on the way home it is usually dark. This year there seems to be more pedestrians using it than last. That's no problem except that quite a few seem to be walking on this dark path in dark clothing without lights or reflectors. Even with my 10W headlight I've been surprised by a few. I'm definitely riding more cautiously now.

Speedo

Did you read the thread cited by the OP?

In that thread I stated that no child was put in danger by passing a stopped bus (with lights on) ten feet on the right, while no child was actually present. I'm not anxious to save 5 or 10 or 60 or 120 seconds, I was just saying that the OP of the bus thread didn't do anything drastically wrong since no children were in any danger.

So because he didn't hit a child that means the OP didn't do anything wrong? What if his actions were the same but a child walked off the bus and the OP collided with them? would he still not have done anything drastically wrong? (guessing also of course that above actions are probably contrary to the HTA in the OPs jurisdiction) His actions were the same.

The argument that he didn't do anything wrong because the OP didn't collide with anyone is invalid.

What if ...? would he still...? (guessing also ....)


The argument that he didn't do anything wrong because the OP didn't collide with anyone is invalid.

You conclude that from the above 'logic', right?

I counter your 'argument' with the All's Well That Ends Well Defense

There's a huge difference between the line-of-sight available to a driver and a cyclist as well as their vehicle's respective handling. A driver trying to slide past a school bus is making a serious gamble, as their bumper is jutting out yards ahead of their actual line-of sight; if a child is about to run out from behind the bus, the driver will be closer to that child by the time he sees it than the cyclist will (as his head will be at the same location as the cyclist or worse, but the front bumper of his car is yards ahead). On a bicycle, I can easily stay well away from the bus and have a huge margin of error between me and the bus as well as an excellent line-of-sight. A driver is limited by the bulk of his vehicle and can't get as far right as a bicycle, so both his reaction time (the child has less distance to run from behind the bus) and his line-of-sight (being further right provides a steeper angle) is vastly inferior. Not to mention that drivers tend to have a under-appreciation for the speed of their vehicle and its associated force.

In this respect a cyclist and driver are an orange and apples comparison, and I see nothing wrong with a cyclist passing a school bus, given that the cyclist does so in a cautious, vigilant, and controlled manner. Fixie kid whipping past the kindergarten bus with a locked rear wheel because it's cooler that way probably doesn't fit the above considerations.

Hmnmmmmmm, how many times have I heard someone that drank alcohol and drove say it was safe and they knew what they were doing?

Hmnmmmmmm, how many times have I heard someone that drank alcohol and drove say it was safe and they knew what they were doing?

Apples and oranges.

Here's a link to the last Washington, DC fatality we were discussing:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/03/AR2007020301735.html

Over 40,000 deaths a year caused by motor vehicles vs ? by cyclists? Not to mention the issue of DUI...


Oh, well that makes it alright then.

i think what it means is not that the rare cyclist killing a pedestrian is "alright" but that if we are really actually concerned about stopping the loss of life we should be put more effort into addressing the dangers of cars.

did you really misunderstand that sentiment?

I have struck a pedestrian before. UT vs Florida game on campus a drunk florida fan walked into the street as I was flying down a hill i moved over to left lane to get by. As I got closer he all of a sudden started running right in front of me. I yelled "DUDE! STOP!" he payed no attention and ended up running into the side of me almost knocking me off.

It was a very scary situation he put me in especially sense I was at the time recovering from surgery due to a cycling accident. If I had struck this guy and killed him I can honestly say I would not have felt at fault or any remorse whatsoever.

I stop at lights and try to behave as much like a car as I can while cycling , and then somebody like this doesn't have the sense of a 5 year old to look both ways before crossing the street almost gets me seriously injured.

I've never heard about a biker killing a pedestrian, how exactly did it happen?

like, what was the exact cause of death?

In Melbourne, the pedestrian crossed properly, and was broadsided by a cyclist running a red light moving at full highway speed. (One of several running that light) Death was from, iirc, internal trauma from the impact. Possibly head injuries from impacting the pavement were involved, I don't recall.