Advocacy & Safety - Olympian safe in Car vs. Peleton

Another who is to blame/responsible. :notamused:
Luckily the majority of injuries were minor. (http://www.timescolonist.com/news/Olympian+Whitfield+among+elite+cyclists+that+could+charged+failing+rid%20e+single+file/1376687/story.html)

Do the manufacturers of your bicycle get behind improvements to existing bicycle traffic laws? :fight:

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/Olympian+Whitfield+among+elite+cyclists+that+could+charged+failing+rid%20e+single+file/1376687/story.html

Link did not work. I had to delete some gibberish from the URL, then it worked.

No charges are being laid. (http://www.timescolonist.com/Sports/Police+Everybody+fault+charges+after+struck+cyclists/1379267/story.html) :(

I've ridden with both groups apprently involved ... OBB and Burnside. Past tense - They're horribly unsafe. A typical formation is a rotating paceline, two columns of riders with the front pair breaking off down respective sides to re-join the back of the pack after a given pull / interval. Just so we're clear, that's four riders abreast, not two - at least, I didn't count mid-pack twitchers. Average speed is about 35 kph ... I have data ... less somewhere undulating like Landsend. That's an obstruction to traffic, and should expect to be passed. Despite over-active imaginations this is not a pro-peleton on a closed course. Some elite riders, yes but for the most part it's a Saturday club ride on shared roads. Do you deserve to be knocked over by a motor vehicle? No of course not, but hopefully this is a sobering enough experience to dillute the group ego's a bit.

I think this guy sums it up fairly well.

A peleton is going to take up the better part of a lane. This means that traffic coming up behind is going to have to have to cross the line to pass. Doing so in such an area puts everyone at risk. Asking traffic to wait for a designated passing area is BS.

We've kicked this dead horse for ever in the A&S forum and I guess will continue to.

Am I claiming that peletons on open public roads need to be forbidden?

No.

But, there needs to be common sense applied. Peleton riders need to realize that if they are incapable of maintaining the posted limit, they are impedeing traffic flow. Riders in such a group should keep an eye in the mirror and break into a single file when being overtaken by cages. Had this group followed that advice, it is very likely that the truck would have been straddling the yellow line or maybe slightly over, rather than completely over it. In such a case the car entering traffic very likely would have avoided colliding with him.

Does this mean that peleton sizes should be kept to a managable level, say 10-12? Yeah, I think it does. You wanna ride in a larger group than that, sign up for a race on a closed road or atleast one that has been marked with warning signs to other vehicles that they are going to have to beware of large lycra clad mobs which may slow them up a bit.

Should there have been charges filed?

Tough to say.

Put yourself in the drivers' position. If you are the truck driver, do you wait for god knows how long to pass? I don't know, without being familiar with this road. If you are the other car's driver, do you get charged with making a right turn onto a road without looking right first? Also tough to call. When I pull up to turn right, I certainly have to look left, as that is where traffic with the right of way is coming from. It's a real good idea to look the other way as well, but, you aren't expecting anything to be in your lane there, so it is understandable that this happened.

Here is the bottom line. No matter what you might think, we as cyclists, are vehicles, with vehicular rights, however, in most instances we haven't a prayer of maintaining the posted limit. This is a fact we should be aware of. It is not right to expect the rest of the vehicle population, which just so happen to greatly outnumber us put along at half the speed limit for an indeterminate period of time so we can practice our peleton skills.

Not saying that taking the lane is never a good idea. There are times where the complete lack of a shoulder coupled with limited sight lines ahead, mean that taking the lane as a way of saying, "hang on a bit buddy, before you pass" is a good idea.

It seems to me that it is against the law (or should be) to hit someone with your car. Should the bikers get a ticket for impeding traffic? Yes, if that also applies to cars, tractors, etc. Just because someone is doing something you don't like or it slows you down, you don't have the right to hit them even if you are right.

Strangely the UK highway code states that we are allowed to ride two abreast. And of course it is much safer, you don't want to overtake a line of riders 20 long or more, do you? Especially as they don't have a "long vehicle" badge to warn the drivers of this. Single filing a large group invites trouble, if the pack uses the road, motorists are forced to overtake as they would any other vehicle, ie using the established safe method. In this instance, it seems that an accident would have occurred much the same had it been a artic lorry instead of a bunch of riders- some motorists do not overtake safely.

A peleton is going to take up the better part of a lane. This means that traffic coming up behind is going to have to have to cross the line to pass. Doing so in such an area puts everyone at risk. Asking traffic to wait for a designated passing area is BS.Sounds good, except if there's no shoulder and the lane isn't extra wide, a single rider is going to take up the better part of a lane. This means that traffic coming up behind is going to have to have to cross the line to pass. Doing so in such an area puts everyone at risk. Asking traffic to wait for a designated passing area is what needs to happen, because anything else is dangerous. (The single cyclist can occasionally pull off the road if possible to let people pass, but that's his call, not somebody else's.)

Ultimately, on a two lane road, It doesn't matter if you're passing one rider, two riders or a peleton -- unless the cyclists are riding on the far right of the lane, and the lane is wide, the passer is going to have to cross over the middle lane of the road. It doesn't matter if he passes a little or a lot -- in both cases his exposure to oncoming traffic is the same and so the same amount of care is needed.

how does a car handle a situation where a slow moving vehicle is in the traffic lane? Suppose it is a street sweeper, a snow plow, or a construction vehicle?

What are the laws that govern passing these vehicles, and what is different about this than a pack of cyclists?


please.

Peleton riders need to realize that if they are incapable of maintaining the posted limit, they are impedeing traffic flow.

I often see this type of comment. I was under the impression that the posted limit was a MAXIMUM speed limit, not a minimum. This fact is so often overlooked that it doesn't even occur to most law enforcement officials that somebody driving at 30mph in a 25mph speed zone is violating the law. Why do we have laws that are so blatantly ignored? By not enforcing the maximum speed limits, we cause motorists to believe that it is their right to travel at a speed no less than that posted.

Peleton riders need to realize that if they are incapable of maintaining the posted limit, they are impedeing traffic flow.

If you take the time to read and understand the traffic laws, you'll see that to be "impeding the flow of traffic" implies that the driver is intentionally going slower than they otherwise could for no legitimate reason. Cyclists, operating human powered vehicles, do not have engines that can run up to their peak output for indefinite periods of time. As such, a cyclist cannot be expected to be able to maintain any speed other than simply moving. For that reason, many vehicle code's impeding traffic laws only apply to motor vehicles.

Slow moving vehicles are required to turn out where possible to allow backed up traffic to pass but only when going less than the normal speed of traffic at that time and place. If you have a peleton of 50 cyclists and a few motorists, the normal speed of traffic at that time and place is the speed of the cyclists.

To me, this story is a classic example of a driver who passed in unsafe conditions.

As for the British California MVA -- cyclists MUST ride single file? Stupid. It's beautiful there, but man, I'm glad I live where there aren't foolish laws that force unsafe group cycling.

:deadhorse2: Just saying.

A well read local writer summed it up very well. (http://www.timescolonist.com/Sports/Jack+Knox+Simon+Whitfield+crash+lesson+rest+Stop+moaning+about+other/1383259/story.html) :hug:

To me, this story is a classic example of a driver who passed in unsafe conditions.

As for the British California MVA -- cyclists MUST ride single file? Stupid. It's beautiful there, but man, I'm glad I live where there aren't foolish laws that force unsafe group cycling.

Yeah. I get 'cha. The two or more abreast law isn't good, but it's rarely enforced. Clubs ride this way anywhere they can.

As for the unsafe passing, I think it might have more to do with the driver making the turn onto the section of road the driver of the Toyota was in.

Sure, most people come to an intersection, look to the direction that they expect traffic should be coming from, and go, but they although they should, they rarely look the other way as well. A driver has the responsibility to see a space is clear before he/she moves into it. The right turner clearly didn't.

I'm not so sure the riding 2 abreast has much to do with the collision either. I'd bet that even if there was a single cyclist on the road and these 2 cars did what they did, the Toyota still would have done the same thing and had the same result (except of course it would have been a single cyclist hit)

It's too bad though. This could have been an opportunity for a high profile and much admired athlete to make some public service announcements for safe driving practices around cyclists. Because the group broke a law, the public would say the cyclists shouldn't have been riding likje they were. They wouldn't see that a driver turned into a roadway withouty seeing that it wasn't safe to do so.

If you take the time to read and understand the traffic laws, you'll see that to be "impeding the flow of traffic" implies that the driver is intentionally going slower than they otherwise could for no legitimate reason. Cyclists, operating human powered vehicles, do not have engines that can run up to their peak output for indefinite periods of time. As such, a cyclist cannot be expected to be able to maintain any speed other than simply moving. For that reason, many vehicle code's impeding traffic laws only apply to motor vehicles.

Slow moving vehicles are required to turn out where possible to allow backed up traffic to pass but only when going less than the normal speed of traffic at that time and place. If you have a peleton of 50 cyclists and a few motorists, the normal speed of traffic at that time and place is the speed of the cyclists.

I don't think it matters whether it's someone intentionally driving slow or just incapable of going faster. If you are not capable of maintaining the posted speed, you should do what you can to see to it that you don't hold up others. We can argue the legality of it till the cows come home, but, imo, it comes down to just doing the considerate thing. Believe it or not, folks value their time. Not everyone is driving a car just because they are lazy. They might be driving one because it is a quick and practical way to get from one place to another. They shouldn't have to schedule an extra 20 minutes because they got stuck behind bicyclists.

I don't think it matters whether it's someone intentionally driving slow or just incapable of going faster. If you are not capable of maintaining the posted speed, you should do what you can to see to it that you don't hold up others. We can argue the legality of it till the cows come home, but, imo, it comes down to just doing the considerate thing. Believe it or not, folks value their time. Not everyone is driving a car just because they are lazy. They might be driving one because it is a quick and practical way to get from one place to another. They shouldn't have to schedule an extra 20 minutes because they got stuck behind bicyclists.

You are missing my point. You claimed that simply not maintaining the speed limit is impeding the flow of traffic. Legally, you are wrong. That's not how the law defines it.

As to being courteous, expecting 50 cyclists to pull off the road to let one motorist by is going way beyond any courtesy one should expect on the road. Do you expect all the traffic backed up at a light to pull over and let you go first just because you are in more of a hurry than the other people are? Does it make a difference if you might have to wait at the light for a bit for the traffic to clear? I doubt it.

I have no idea what exactly transpired in this situation and for all I know, the motorist could have had clear sightlines to pass but some riders made it impossible for him to do so. In my experience though, it's far more frequent that a motorist decides not to wait the 10-20 seconds (a magnitude smaller than your 20 minutes exagerration) to complete a safe pass than cyclists intentionally take up an entire road trying to block anyone from passing.

Your pleas for making sure motorists aren't slowed down are going to fall on deaf ears with most of us given that motorists experience far more delays from traffic other than cyclists or traffic control devices, all of which they quietly accept. Yet somehow the infrequent occurence of a cyclist(s) in their way provokes a complete disregard for the law (someone else breaking the law is no excuse for you to as well) and common sense.

You are missing my point. You claimed that simply not maintaining the speed limit is impeding the flow of traffic. Legally, you are wrong. That's not how the law defines it.

As to being courteous, expecting 50 cyclists to pull off the road to let one motorist by is going way beyond any courtesy one should expect on the road. Do you expect all the traffic backed up at a light to pull over and let you go first just because you are in more of a hurry than the other people are? Does it make a difference if you might have to wait at the light for a bit for the traffic to clear? I doubt it.

I have no idea what exactly transpired in this situation and for all I know, the motorist could have had clear sightlines to pass but some riders made it impossible for him to do so. In my experience though, it's far more frequent that a motorist decides not to wait the 10-20 seconds (a magnitude smaller than your 20 minutes exagerration) to complete a safe pass than cyclists intentionally take up an entire road trying to block anyone from passing.

Your pleas for making sure motorists aren't slowed down are going to fall on deaf ears with most of us given that motorists experience far more delays from traffic other than cyclists or traffic control devices, all of which they quietly accept. Yet somehow the infrequent occurence of a cyclist(s) in their way provokes a complete disregard for the law (someone else breaking the law is no excuse for you to as well) and common sense.

I disagree with this statement a bit. I think it is the courteous thing to do when there are so many cyclists riding together. With 50 cyclists riding 2 abreast, you have a mass of "slow moving" vehicles about 100 feet long. That is nearly impossible to pass even in the best conditions, especially if there is oncoming traffic. In this scenario, a motorist may never be able to safely pass the group of cyclists. If this is a 55mph highway, the driver could be stuck at 25 mph for the entire trip; it is my opinion that this is irresponsible behavior by the cyclists. As numerous people have mentioned before, riding in smaller groups or pulling over to allow faster traffic to pass, is the courteous, responsible action to take.

It seems to me what I'm hearing is that cyclists shouldn't even be on the road. The fact is, bicycles are allowed on the road and they travel at bicycle speeds. Other road users just have to expect that at times. They'll have to slow down, wait and pass when it's safe to do so just like they do when they have to wait for that truck that is taking a long time to ascend a hill or waiting for a bus to let it's passengers on or off.

There are narrow stretches of road where the safest thing for a cyclist to do is be far enough in the lane so that a vehicle who wishes to pass has to move into the oncoming lane of traffic to do so. It seems this is what happened here. If the riders were riding in single file, while being legal, it could make overtaking more difficult by stretching that line out to a much longer length making the overtaking much longer and more dangerous.

Hard to believe there's an argument over cyclists using the road here. Almost as hard as the discussion not focusing on an inattentive driver not looking at the road he is turning onto.

No argument from me that cyclists have a right to the road.

I don't understand why passing would be allowed on a section of roadway with intersections. I cannot see how it's the fault of the turning driver to watch for a passing vehicle on the right. When you are passing, oncoming traffic has the right of way and you need to get out of the way. If a vehicle turns into the oncoming lane while you're are passing, you need to get out of the way. If this account is accurate, I would guess that the vehicle was passing the cyclists in a no passing zone.

You must look both ways before turning. A roadway has to be clear before you move into it. It looks like the driver of the Focus didn't do what he should have.

You must look both ways before turning. A roadway has to be clear before you move into it. It looks like the driver of the Focus didn't do what he should have.

I really disagree with this. The passing vehicle must yield to any oncoming traffic. It seems the passing driver messed up big time. I'm sure the laws are a bit different everywhere, but there really should not be a passing zone at the site of an intersection.

I really disagree with this. The passing vehicle must yield to any oncoming traffic. It seems the truck driver messed up big time. I'm sure the laws are a bit different everywhere, but there really should not be a passing zone at the site of an intersection.

You sir are completely correct. The toyota had no business passing here


Campbell said he was surprised the driver of the Toyota chose to pass at that time as it was on a solid yellow line nearing an intersection at a bend in the road.

Solid yellow means no passing, it's simple.

What? Oncoming traffic can't be coming from a direction that you weren't looking at?

The Toyota that was passing the cyclists sustained side impact damage. The Ford that was making a right turn out from Ravenscroft Place had front impact damage. In other words, the car that was pulling out, drove straight into the side of the passing vehicle.

Keep in mind that Lands End Road is a through road that is narrow and Ranenscroft Place has a stop sign at the intersection with LER.

Common sense tells us, cars turning into a roadway should not enter the roadway if vehicles "are approaching so closely on the through highway as to constitute an immediate hazard"

Does that sound like that was the overtaking vehicles fault?

... and, double yellow means no passing. Single yellow means you can pass when safe. Do you know if there was a double, or single yellow at this point of the road?

Hard to believe there's an argument over cyclists using the road here. Almost as hard as the discussion not focusing on an inattentive driver not looking at the road he is turning onto.

Agreed. This was one of my points in a different earlier thread about the same event:
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=8505268&postcount=6

Al

Keep in mind that Lands End Road is a through road that is narrow and Ranenscroft Place has a stop sign at the intersection with LER.


By through road do you mean that this is a fairly busy road?

If so, we have a busy, narrow road, with side roads.

Seems to me that this is a horrible choice for a group ride of any more than a few people. And it's a really dumb place to be riding anything other than single file.

Sounds like the olympic rider that was involved is a pretty stand up dude.

I disagree with this statement a bit. I think it is the courteous thing to do when there are so many cyclists riding together. With 50 cyclists riding 2 abreast, you have a mass of "slow moving" vehicles about 100 feet long. That is nearly impossible to pass even in the best conditions, especially if there is oncoming traffic. In this scenario, a motorist may never be able to safely pass the group of cyclists. If this is a 55mph highway, the driver could be stuck at 25 mph for the entire trip; it is my opinion that this is irresponsible behavior by the cyclists. As numerous people have mentioned before, riding in smaller groups or pulling over to allow faster traffic to pass, is the courteous, responsible action to take.

Let's do some math. We'll compare the time needed to pass a 50mph single vehicle versus 50 cyclists riding two abreast at 25mph. We'll assume a speed of 55mph for the passer.

For the 50mph vehicle, let's say it's 10 feet long and that the passer wants to leave 1.5 car lengths (15 feet) between him and the passee before moving back over. So, to get 25 feet ahead with a 5mph (7.33 ft/s) speed differential it would take 3.4 seconds.

For the 25mph pack at 200 feet long (100 feet is 25 really small bicycles) with a 30mph (44 ft/s) speed differential and leaving the same space before moving over (total of 225 feet), the passer would need 5.1 seconds.

Not really much of a difference, eh? It's certainly far from making one easy to pass and one impossible.

Sure, if there's oncoming traffic you need to wait for it to clear but it's pretty rare for there to be zero breaks in oncoming traffic. Being able to use the passing lane for 5 seconds is not unreasonable or uncommon on 55mph roads (those roads tend to have few curves).

Now, if sightlines are really that bad that you cannot pass the whole group at once then the group could make the decision to break up to allow for smaller groups to be passed one at a time, or the group could just slow down. That still requires no oncoming traffic and some line of sight on the road. If the group chooses not to accomodate someone by taking all of those measures, it's still no excuse for the driver to execute a dangerous pass.

And it's a really dumb place to be riding anything other than single file.

Why?

I ride lands end frequently because it is an out of the way country road with very, very little traffic. It is also a narrow, narrow road with a quite a few dips in the road. The Saanich peninsula has numerous roads like this that are selected by cyclists to avoid the heavily trafficked main freeway that collects the majority of through traffic. For this reason there are a lot of areas on these out of the way roads that I as a lone cyclist will move out from the curb if I feel a car, approaching from behind, can not safely pass.

While I do drive a car, I am amazed at the lax enforcement of traffic laws at the court level. The message has been for years that somehow when there is an "accident" the driver shares the responsibility with the automobile industry. The focus is continually on improving the safety of vehicles as if that will prevent an accident caused by a spilled cup of coffee, aggressive driving, alcohol or just plain stupidity.

One comment referred to the long history of automobile DRIVERS causing death and who should be held to a higher level of responsibility. A very good question when one considers the damage caused by bicycle operators when they are at fault.

Why?

As I said in my previous post it is a choice road to avoid traffic. The speed limit is, I believe, 40 Kph; something this particular peleton could easily attain on this road.

What? Oncoming traffic can't be coming from a direction that you weren't looking at?

The Toyota that was passing the cyclists sustained side impact damage. The Ford that was making a right turn out from Ravenscroft Place had front impact damage. In other words, the car that was pulling out, drove straight into the side of the passing vehicle.

Keep in mind that Lands End Road is a through road that is narrow and Ranenscroft Place has a stop sign at the intersection with LER.

Common sense tells us, cars turning into a roadway should not enter the roadway if vehicles "are approaching so closely on the through highway as to constitute an immediate hazard"

Does that sound like that was the overtaking vehicles fault?

... and, double yellow means no passing. Single yellow means you can pass when safe. Do you know if there was a double, or single yellow at this point of the road?

I was going to lambaste you for saying that single yellow means passing is permitted and i was going to quote my good old Alberta Driver's Handbook
In rural areas, solid yellow lines whether single or double indicate that passing is not permitted.But then i thought, hmmm, better quote the BC handbook:
Single yellow line — vehicles traveling in either direction may pass when it is safe:eek:

So you're absolutely correct about the yellows. The article only mentions Solid Yellow, but never whether it's double or single. If it were single and passing were permitted then i concede are correct.

You also might also want to consider that this area is not rural.

Let's do some math. We'll compare the time needed to pass a 50mph single vehicle versus 50 cyclists riding two abreast at 25mph. We'll assume a speed of 55mph for the passer.Sounds good, but you sort of fudged things by only letting him pass at 5 mph over the speed of the cars. In the real world, 5 mph faster is on the slow side. Also, when you're about to pass the cyclists, you'd usually have slowed down to 25 mph first, and so accelerating to 55 mph will take some time -- more time than it takes to accelerate from 50 mph to 55 mph.

Though really, comparing a peleton to a few cars isn't really fair. Instead, if there's 50 bicycles, let's compare that to 50 cars. Or, if you want to suggest that the average car has 1.5 people in it (made up figure!), then let's compare to 33 cars. How long would it take you to pass 33 cars? If they're all driving legally and not tailgating, you'd have to pass 33 times. (I guess the tailgating laws don't apply to bicycles? Or the cops just haven't thought of using them on cyclists yet?) And if they are all tailgating, you'd probably *never* be able to pass safely, unless the road widened.


If the group chooses not to accomodate someone by taking all of those measures, it's still no excuse for the driver to execute a dangerous pass.Ultimately, that's the bottom line. If you can't safely pass somebody doing 25 mph, you don't pass them. Even if it takes an hour, you wait until it's safe to pass. Being stuck behind them for some period of time doesn't change what's safe and what's not. (It might change your perception of what an acceptable risk is, but it seems some people let this perception change far too quickly.)

Sounds good, but you sort of fudged things by only letting him pass at 5 mph over the speed of the cars. In the real world, 5 mph faster is on the slow side. Also, when you're about to pass the cyclists, you'd usually have slowed down to 25 mph first, and so accelerating to 55 mph will take some time -- more time than it takes to accelerate from 50 mph to 55 mph.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...I didn't feel like putting that much time into my theoretical passing situation calculations. Thanks for making me feel lazy :)

As to the 55mph speed, I just picked a constant speed for the passer. I could have chosen 65mph for both situations and the numbers wouldn't have looked all that much different given how small they are to begin with. I could have swung the pendulum more towards the cyclists by having the motorist be driving at 50mph in a tractor trailer but I didn't want to seem like I was being unfair and upset some of our more delicate members ;)