Is Something Wrong with this News Report?

[John C. Ratliff]

I sat down to supper this evening, and as usual was reading the editorial section of the paper. Under an article about the Memorial Day observances, was an article with this title:

Victims of U.S. 26 accident identified; bicyclist dies in crash on Wren Road

"Traffic accidents killed three people Thursday night and Friday in western Washington County...

Friday afternoon, Walter G. McKinnon, 53, of Aloha died when his bicycle collided with a van on Wren Road, according to the Washington County Sheriff's Office.

"McKinnon was one of two cyclists riding west about 4:15 p.m. when he pulled into the path of the westbound van. The driver, Bryson Urie, 17, of Hillsboro, veered into the eastbound lane but could not avoid the cyclist."
The Oregonian, Saturday, May 29, 2004

I am trying to visualize how a bicyclist "pulled into the path of a westbound van" when he was also traveling westbound, and the driver "veered into the eastbound lane..." I cannot visualize this; to me it seems that the van must have been attempting a pass. I cannot speculate further until I know more about the accident. Since this is in my area, I will attempt through the Washington County Sheriff's Office to obtain a copy of the report.

Obviously, another sad situation has occurred here. My condolences to the McKinnon family.

John

[khuon]

The cyclist could have been moving from the shoulder into a traffic lane without first clearing. On a two-lane highway, an overtaking vehicle would most likely veer into the oncoming lane in order to try and avoid hitting the cyclist. The van must have been coming up at a pretty high speed differential with little warning and too short a distance otherwise a simple braking maneuver should have been sufficient.

[Roughstuff]

I

I am trying to visualize how a bicyclist "pulled into the path of a westbound van" when he was also traveling westbound, and the driver "veered into the eastbound lane..." John

Hmmm....let us know if there are any followups. But to me it is easy to visualize a cyclist 'pulling into the path of a westbound van....' When I see other riders in front of me, very often they will veer suddenly from one lane to another; or from the shoulder lane into the lane of vehicular traffic, without so much as a hand signal, or a glance backward to make sure no one is there. It sounds like the van driver veered into the lane of oncoming traffic (Eastbound).

Such sudden lane changes are a great way to get a fender bender if you are in a car; on a bike, as we see here if this was indeed the case, they can be fatal...

roughstuff

[LittleBigMan]

The van must have been coming up at a pretty high speed differential with little warning and too short a distance otherwise a simple braking maneuver should have been sufficient.
Unless the cyclist swerved significantly, say, three feet or more into the lane, the motorist is at fault.

I don't want to judge prematurely, but the van driver was only 17 years old, not very experienced.

[John C. Ratliff]

I talked to a retired Washington County Sheriff's officer in church this morning, and he told me that the majority of the bicycle/car accidents he ever investigated in over 20 years were the fault of the bicyclist. But for motorcycle/car accidents, usually it was the car at fault. He also said that I may and may not be able to get a Sheriff's Report on this crash. Wren Road is a two-lane road, without bicycle lanes, which is used by a growing number of people to avoid other, more highly traveled (and on Friday, jammed with traffic) roads and highways.

That being said, the part that I cannot visualize is that the bicycle collided with the van. To me, and maybe I'm off on this, when I collide with something on my bicycle, I take it on my front wheel. The bicyclist above may have pulled out in front of the van, but to me the van is the vehicle which collided with the bicyclist, and not the other way around. Drivers have a responsibility to anticipate unexpected actions by pedestrians and others (bicyclists, other vehicles, farm vehicles, etc.). If, it trying to pass the bicyclists, the van driver did not allow for an extra few feet to clear himself, then I feel it was the van who collided with the bicyclist, and not the other way around.

I drive a lot too, and always try to maintain a separation when passing bicyclists. That separation is the distance sideways I feel the bicyclist could travel if he or she fell in front of me. Usually, it is about six feet. To pass closer is to invite a problem.

If a toddler in a tricycle had been on that road, and had been going the same way as the cars (as my brother was some 50 years ago), but veered to the side, would we say that the toddler collided with a car, and that is why the toddler was killed? Why does the same logic not apply here? This kind of situation is why I do not ride on Fridays; traffic is pretty weird at that time/day.

John

[Trek Rider]

"McKinnon was one of two cyclists riding west about 4:15 p.m. when he pulled into the path of the westbound van.

To me it sounds as if the bicyclist either "drifted over" in front of the van, or possibly swerved to avoid a road hazard. The information that you provided really doesn't begin to explain what really happened.

All we know for sure is that a cyclist was hit by a van and was killed.

[khuon]

I agree that the wording is wrong. I have a hard time picturing the cyclist colliding with the van. I suppose the cyclist could have swerved into the van as it was alongside but that seems to contradict other particulars of the report. I've often seen news reports saying things like "bicyclist impacted the car" or "cyclist ran into the truck" which seems really oddly worded at best and at worst highly biased.

[John E]

The act of colliding is mutual: the cyclist and the van collided with each other. However, the reporter should have been more explicit, saying, for example [assuming this is indeed what happened], that "the van struck the cyclist from behind." This would be useful information for other bicyclists and motorists, particularly if the reporter had taken the time to educate him/herself on the rules of the road, and had included safety notices to the effect, "ride predictably; don't swerve" [to cyclists] and "watch your speed and note that bicyclists have the right to use the roadway" [to motorists].

[LittleBigMan]

Until the fatal crash is examined by a bicycle crash expert, the truth might not ever be known.

[Feldman]

I'd bet big money that 1.)being a 17 year old male and 2.)in rural Washington county the driver was exceeding the speed limit by AT LEAST 20%. Having ridden thousands of miles in that area, I can tell you all that speed limits are but the merest, mildest suggestion and that excessive speed exacerbated the driver's inability to avoid the rider. It was also a rather windy day and a gust could have pushed the rider off his line.

[LittleBigMan]

I'd bet big money that 1.)being a 17 year old male and 2.)in rural Washington county the driver was exceeding the speed limit by AT LEAST 20%. Having ridden thousands of miles in that area, I can tell you all that speed limits are but the merest, mildest suggestion and that excessive speed exacerbated the driver's inability to avoid the rider. It was also a rather windy day and a gust could have pushed the rider off his line.
According to popular opinion, it was probably that silly cyclist's fault. He didn't deserve to die, but we can't restrict 17 year-olds from driving fast, it's their right, and an economic necessity for Amoco, Firestone, Ford, and McDonald's.

[John C. Ratliff]

Okay, today I took my bicycle trip at noon, and instead of applying a lot of miles, rode to the Washington County Sheriff's Office to see whether I could get a copy of the Sheriff's Report. Since no criminal case was being considered in this situation, I was able to obtain the report. The premise of this thread, which I named "What's Wrong with this News Report," was that something just did not feel right. Well, that premise was correct, but not in the manner we are thinking.

The driver who hit the bicyclist was not speeding, and in fact had slowed down to pass the cyclists. He was traveling about 55 to 60 mph before starting to slow down. The driver "then told me" (the Sheriff's Officer) "he slowed down when he was approaching the bicyclists. He then said when he was about 20 feet to 50 feet behind the bicyclist when he also swerved out partially into eastbound lanes to 'avoid hitting the bicyclist.'

"Urie then told me he saw McKinnon look back at him. Urie then told me 'I don't know how he didn't see me.' Urie then said that McKinnon 'cut out in front of me and was in the middle lane between both lanes.' Urie then said that was when his vehicle hit McKinnon. Urie believes McKinnon may have been trying to cross the street."

The Sheriff's officer then determined that the driver was not impared, had eaten, and had slept well recently. There was another driver, who preceeded this one around the bicyclists, and who witnessed the crash from his rear view mirror. He collaborated the driver's story. So also did the other bicyclist who was riding with McKinnon.

There were other factors I'd rather not get into, as they are mentioned but not collaborated, and the case is not being pursued. Needless to say, all of us need to re-think our assumptions, except Trek Rider and John E. These two were skepical at the beginning. My assumption that something was not right was correct, but I also was looking at the van driver; well, you know about how to break down the word "assume" don't you? (Hint, break the word after the second "s," the "u," and the "e" and say it fast.)

Are there really some lessons to be learned here? Perhaps, but I'm still contemplating about whether to discuss them here or not. I guess the best one is not to always think the driver is at fault. I feel for the van driver, and everyone involved with this tragic situation.

John

[LittleBigMan]

John, you thought there was something wrong with the news report. There is a gross error which cannot be ignored, despite some of our incorrect assumptions based on lack of information. The gross error is that it was reported that, "the cyclist struck the driver." While blame might be assigned to the cyclist for making a dangerous lane change, the cyclist by no means struck the driver. The driver struck the cyclist.

There is no excuse for misreporting that simple fact. What other facts might have been misreported, or omitted? Unfortunately, the cyclist cannot speak for himself.

Yet it is true that it is a capital mistake to theorize before obtaining all the facts. It is also true that we should be careful not to demonize every driver that kills a bicyclist.

[randya]

...he told me that the majority of the bicycle/car accidents he ever investigated in over 20 years were the fault of the bicyclist.
IMHO, this is biased bullsh*t. See this report from Right of Way in NYC regarding police bias when investigating motor vehicle - bicyclist crashes: http://www.rightofway.org/research/cyclists.pdf

[John C. Ratliff]

Actually, randya, the retired Sheriff's Officer was more explicit than that, and I toned it down a bit. He stated that "all" the bicycle/car accidents he ever investigated were caused by the bicyclist. So yes, you are correct, there definately was a bias in his viewpoint.

LittleBigMan was also correct, in that there was some inaccurate reporting, and that's what triggered my thread. While I still have not decided to discuss all the Sheriff's report on this accident, I will post below the actual "Media Information" sheet that was available to reporters. Take a look at this, and compare it to my first post on this thread:

Crash Kills Bicyclist

About 4:156 p.m. on Friday, May 28, 2004 deputies were dispatched to a fatal crash involving a nav and a bicyclist on NW Wren Road in Washington County.

The investigation shows that two bicyclists were westbound on NW Wren Road when one of the bicyclists pulled out into the path of a westbound Plymouth van. A monorist, who was driving the westbound vehicle ahead of the van, said that he had to pull into the eastbound lane to avoid the bicyclist. He also said that he looked back in his rearview mirror and saw the van also pull into the eastbound lane in an attempt to avoid the bicyclist, but that the bicyclist appeared to pull out even further into the path of the van.

The bicyclist, a male in his mid to late 40's, was pronounced at the scene. His name is not being released at this time, pending notification of his family.

Deputies say it does not appear that drugs, alcohol or speed played a role in this crash and no citations will be issued.

NW Wren Road was closed between NW Susbaur Road and NW Bagley Road. It was reopened at 6:15 p.m.

[Chris L]

Actually, randya, the retired Sheriff's Officer was more explicit than that, and I toned it down a bit. He stated that "all" the bicycle/car accidents he ever investigated were caused by the bicyclist. So yes, you are correct, there definately was a bias in his viewpoint.

Why do I get the impression this guy is just some bigoted moron who thinks that the cyclist is automatically at fault for the mere fact that they're on the road at all? It wouldn't surprise me one bit.

[BeTheChange]

For some reason I think the cyclist was taking the lane. That's all I can come up with for why he would do this. And then the driver didn't know that the cyclist could do this so he never hit the brakes just kept on going expecting everything to work out. What ever happened to if the person hits you from behind they are at fault? I'm sure it is different in this case, but if he was in the center of the lane then the driver should have stopped untill it was safe to pass. Just my $.02

[John C. Ratliff]

This weekend, probably tomorrow, I will look at Wren Road to get a better idea of what the physical layout is there.

John

[Harry]

I had a "discussion" with a friend recently about slow moving bicycles holding up traffic whilst pedalling slowly up hills. She does not drive herself but seems to be brain washed in this case! If the object, cyclist, cattle stampede or fallen tree in front gets in your way then you must stop. You do not have an option!

Most cars (and vans) are equipped with brakes, horn and indicators. Why do so many motorist not use these, after all they have paid for them?

Our society is getting sicker by the day. If you are in such a hurry why not get up earlier in the morning and save all that stress and potential danger...

[Dchiefransom]

For some reason I think the cyclist was taking the lane. That's all I can come up with for why he would do this. And then the driver didn't know that the cyclist could do this so he never hit the brakes just kept on going expecting everything to work out. What ever happened to if the person hits you from behind they are at fault? I'm sure it is different in this case, but if he was in the center of the lane then the driver should have stopped untill it was safe to pass. Just my $.02


It sounds like the cyclist took up enough of the lane that anyone trying to pass was going at least part way into the opposing lane to pass them. From the original article, the cyclist made a sudden move that took him into the path of the van without leaving the van any time to react. "At fault" would be for civil purposes only, if someone moved suddenly and the van couldn't avoid it. In the second update, it sounds like the cars were trying to share the road with the cyclists.
Nobody has picked up a reference in the update to a "middle lane"? Was there a left turn lane running between the east and west bound lanes? It seems there are a lot of inaccuracies in this story.

[John C. Ratliff]

Okay, I did go out yesterday to view the area of Wren Road where the accident occurred. I am not now going to give any opinions, only the facts I saw there.

Wren Road is a two-lane road, with no middle lane. The accident occurred just east of an intersection, where a stop sign was present. There is a yellow "Stop Ahead" sign, about 500 feet from the intersection.

The "Stop Ahead" sign is the "O point" that was used in the investigation, and extended 250 feet to the east of this sign. For this entire part of the roadway, there is no shoulder. The fog line strip is within 4-6 inches of the edge of the pavement. Beyond that, is gravel and a ditch; it is unridable for road bikes.

The roadway lane is 9 feet wide on either side of the center lines. That's right, there are two solid lines for the entire distance from 250 feet the other side (east side) of the "Stop Ahead" sign all the way to the Stop Sign. These solid lines are fairly recently re-striped, and are a bright yellow. So they are very easy to see. Slightly to the east of this area, the center line changes to one line, that is dashed.

This means that both bicyclists had to be completely in the roadway for the entire time they were riding Wren Road. Whether they were in the right third of the roadway is a matter of conjecture.

Wren Road is a country road, with only fields on either side. There is no other features on the side of the road, except an occasional farm home or farm. The road is marked with a "green" overlay on the Washington County "Getting There by Bicycle" map. That means the road is "Most Suitable." "When compared to other roads, these roads are the most suitable for bicycle travel because there is generally adequate road width and/or the road traffic volumes is lighter."

I talked to three local girls on two bicycles (one was riding on the rear axle steps of one of the bikes). None of the girls had helmets. I asked them when the road was re-striped, and was told it was fairly recently. I asked if that meant within the last week, and they said "No, it was a few months back." I then told them my story of my helmet in 12 pieces, and that they needed to have helmets. I also told them about the helmet give-away program at a local hospital, when one of the girls said they did not have enough money to buy one.

Well, that's the result of my looking over the area. I took a few photos, and will post them when I get them back.

John

[randya]

If the lanes were only 9' and the shoulder was only inches wide the cyclists by Oregon law had the right to an entire lane (ORS 814.430(2)(c)), especially if the overtaking vehicle was a van of some sort. The state standard is something like 13' minimum for a 'shared lane' situation. It seems like 55 to 60 mph would be way too high of a speed limit for the road you are describing. Did you see any speed limit signs??? The article also seemed to indicate some sort of center turn lane, but it doesn't sound like you saw that?? The driver would have been allowed to cross the center line to pass the slower cyclists, but he should have yielded ROW to the cyclists until is was safe to pass, by slowing down and waiting...Can you say "inexperienced teenage driver" and "police pro-motorist bias"??? :mad:

[hollow]

We don't know that it wasn't safe to pass. A vehicle traveling in the same direction had just made a successful pass. Also, there was no mention of traffic coming toward the van and cyclists so passing would be presumed to be safe. It appears that the two drivers and the other cyclist corroborated the report that Mr. McKinnon suddenly veered too far toward the center line. And where is the mysterious center lane coming from that a few have mentioned? I haven't seen mention of it anywhere. I can say "inexperienced teenaged driver", but I don't see how it's relevent here. He seemed to be driving within the law and made every effort to avoid the collision. It's interesting in this forum how readily some are to throw around epithets about others (teenagers, SUV/truck drivers, police) but rarely admit that cyclist make mistakes. These generalizations and stereotypes would seem to go against the image of the type of people we have here. Or maybe I'm overestimating some of the people here.

[madpogue]

If it was within 500 feet of a STOP intersection, after the STOP AHEAD sign, and on a 9-foot-wide lane with no shoulder and a solid yellow line, it wasn't safe to pass. The van driver was at a point where he should have been slowing down for the upcoming stop, not pulling into the oncoming lane to overtake a bicyclist who had right of way of the whole lane. Passing anyone this close to an intersection is inviting disaster.

[randya]

And where is the mysterious center lane coming from that a few have mentioned? I haven't seen mention of it anywhere.
See post #12 paragraph 3. The mysterious center lane was quoted in the police report and was specifically mentioned by the driver involved in the incident when questioned by the police. The rest of this post (#12) indicates to me that the police report makes even less sense than the original news article...just because the driver was well fed, alert and wasn't on drugs, has very little to do with whether he actually knows how to drive safely in the vicinity of bicyclists.

I still believe that the driver should have yielded the ROW to the bicyclists, given the circumstances. IMO, it seems to me that the driver should have at a minimum been ticketed for failing to yield the ROW, and probably cited for vehicular manslaughter as well. But then this is amerika, where the motor vehicle is still king of the road...

[John C. Ratliff]

I am not yet ready to voice an opinion on this situation, but I will clarify a few things.

When I went over to the site on NW Wren Road, I drove my van. I drove it west, the same way the traffic in this situation was driving. I was not comfortable driving at greater than about 45-50 mph. Some of the curves in the road were marked slower, at 25 or 35 mph. There was no posted speed limit on the road, however. I took it up to about 60 mph at one point, and was not comfortable at all driving that speed on that highway.

Concerning the reports of a "middle lane," let me say that the language used in the report was confusing. For instance, the report states ""swerved out partially into eastbound lanes..." and "that McKinnon 'cut out in front of me and was in the middle lane between both lanes.'" But there was only one lane each way. I'm not sure why this was written in this way. The diagram that accompanies the text shows only one lane each direction (east-bound and west-bound). This diagram also shows the van straddling the center-lines (two are shown on the drawing too). Glass debries and a wrist band are shown in the east-bound lane. A bicycle tire, the bicycle and Mr. McKinnon were shown off the road on the south side of the road. This is across the east-bound lane. The distance between the glass debries and Mr. McKinnon's location on the ground is represented to be about 75 feet, with the wrist band, bycycle tire (probably the rear tire) close to each other about 15-25 feet from the glass debries, and the bicycle about 50 feet from the glass debries.

Now, my knowledge of Oregon driving laws (but I currently cannot quote the exact law) states that if there is a solid, double line in the center of the roadway, you are not to pass. At nine feet wide, there surely is not enough room for a van to comfortably pass even one cyclist who must also occupy that lane (no shoulder at all). This traffic report form has an area to mark the "Traffic Control Type" in it. For both the cyclist and the van, the boxes beside "None" are checked. There are several other options underneith, including "Pavement markings Lane Controls/Lines/Stripes/Devices." This is not checked. The first car probable passed before getting to the double-stripped area (although I don't know for sure). But the van was in this area of the roadway.

We, as a society, are so conditioned to going fast, to getting to where we want to be quickly, that we cannot take a minute out to ensure that we can get there safely and without hurting someone. At ten miles per hour, the two bicyclists would have covered 880 feet in a minute. This was the approximate distance to the stop sign on the intersection of NW Wren Road and NW Susbauer Road. But a minute can seem like an eternity to a driver, conditioned to be impatient and overbearing (look at the TV ads, if you want a reminder; the behavior is sometimes atrocious).

This situation hit me hard, because it is much like the situation I found myself in almost two years ago, when I woke up in the hospital an hour after my last memory of trying to initiate a lane change on a road while bicycling home from work (also on a Friday). This is why I hesitate to speculate, because it has become personal to me--too personal to be objective. By training, I must not do this though, so I will wait a bit longer to express my feelings on this one, if I ever do.

John

[khuon]

John, I commend you on you impartiality and your attention to detail and analysis. It seems you have thus far done more justice to the investigation of this tragedy than anyone else who were actually tasked with doing so. Thank you. I think many of us as both drivers and cyclists can learn from what you have taken the time to convey.

[madpogue]

John, I commend you on you impartiality and your attention to detail and analysis. It seems you have thus far done more justice to the investigation of this tragedy than anyone else who were actually tasked with doing so. Agreed. The unfortunate, and unnerving, thing, though, is that those "actually tasked with doing so" are the ones on whose investigation decisions will be / have been / won't be made.

[LittleBigMan]

The accident occurred just east of an intersection, where a stop sign was present. There is a yellow "Stop Ahead" sign, about 500 feet from the intersection.

The "Stop Ahead" sign is the "0 point" that was used in the investigation, and extended 250 feet to the east of this sign.

...there are two solid lines for the entire distance from 250 feet the other side (east side) of the "Stop Ahead" sign all the way to the Stop Sign. These solid lines are fairly recently re-striped, and are a bright yellow. So they are very easy to see.
I frequently have drivers race ahead of me to get the the stop sign (or stop light) before me.

Passing safely is the responsibility of the overtaking vehicle.

[hollow]

See post #12 paragraph 3. The mysterious center lane was quoted in the police report and was specifically mentioned by the driver involved in the incident when questioned by the police. The rest of this post (#12) indicates to me that the police report makes even less sense than the original news article...just because the driver was well fed, alert and wasn't on drugs, has very little to do with whether he actually knows how to drive safely in the vicinity of bicyclists.

I still believe that the driver should have yielded the ROW to the bicyclists, given the circumstances. IMO, it seems to me that the driver should have at a minimum been ticketed for failing to yield the ROW, and probably cited for vehicular manslaughter as well. But then this is amerika, where the motor vehicle is still king of the road...


So the mysterious center lane was quoted in the police report by the "inexperienced teen driver" as you referred to him. I wouldn't think you'd give much creedence to anything he said.

If someone suddenly veers in front of you how did you fail to yield the right of way? Just because cyclists have a right to ride on the roads doesn't mean they/we are absolved of responisbility to ride safely. And recommending a vehicular manslaughter charge when the driver, the witness in the other car AND the other bicyclist all agreed that Mr. McKinnon cut out in front of the van is ridiculous.

Under Oregon law there is no vehicular manslaughter. There are three other charges that could be brought: 1st degree manslaughter, 2nd degree manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide. The evidence (witnesses) and definitions of the charges would not warrant any of these.

What I'll take from all of this is that I feel very badly for Mr. McKinnon's family and I'll try to be ever more careful when I'm out riding. Regardless who is at fault in a bike/car accident, what I do know is that I stand very little chance against any car so I'd better stay out of their way even if I'm in the right.

[slider]

The most curious fact in this whole discussion is that the other cyclist corroborated the drivers story. If that were not the case I would find it easy to believe that the cyclist was taking the lane and everyone else involved can't stand it when cyclists insist on their right to the lane and feel that the cyclist had it coming or that the boy shouldn't be punished. Some explanations which include the other cyclist's corroboration would be:

A. The cyclist really did swerve drastically and unavoidably.
B. The Police Officer interpreted what the cyclist said through his biased filter when writing the report.
B. The other cyclist had some reason to give a false statement to the Police Officer.

The only ones who really know are the other cyclist and the drivers.

[madpogue]

D. The other cyclist didn't understand the van driver's responsibilities, or her/his rights (or those of the cyclist who was killed) in situations like this.
E. The other cyclist generally doesn't understand the equal rights and responsibilities cyclists have with other vehicles (i.e. you're not "in traffic", you "are traffic"). This could easily have combined with (B) above to produce the report that resulted.

[LittleBigMan]

The most curious fact in this whole discussion is that the other cyclist corroborated the drivers story.
I missed that part. Please show me the quote in which the other cyclist corroborated the driver's story. That would carry some weight with me.

Cyclists have been known to swerve out into the lane, but also, drivers have been known to use this defense after killing experienced cyclists. The bottom line is that drivers need to slow down when approaching cyclists and pass at a moderate speed and a safe distance which allows for, "swerving."

Being in a hurry is no excuse for killing anyone. I'm not for persecuting teenage drivers, but even teenage drivers are dying at an extreme rate. Car crashes are the number one killer of teenagers in the United States.

Someone mentioned that the first driver "successfully passed" the cyclist. The report read that the first driver had to cross into the eastbound lane to avoid the cyclist. This should have been enough to alert the following driver, who actually killed the cyclist, that the cyclist was there, unless the driver had been going too fast. Cyclists are treated as roadkill and those who kill them are treated as victims.

[Trek Rider]

I missed that part. Please show me the quote in which the other cyclist corroborated the driver's story. That would carry some weight with me.

Here is what was originally posted in post #12:

The Sheriff's officer then determined that the driver was not impared, had eaten, and had slept well recently. There was another driver, who preceeded this one around the bicyclists, and who witnessed the crash from his rear view mirror. He collaborated the driver's story. So also did the other bicyclist who was riding with McKinnon.

[John C. Ratliff]

To answer some more questions, I'm going to include the part of the statement that I left out in some of my original posts. I did this for a purpose, which will become apparent when I put it below. Before putting this in, let me say that my summarization was accurate, but I did not want to prejudice the account with this information. This is some of the information I mentioned earlier that I might not put on the internet. In doing so, I am withholding the names of the individuals involved, both police and witness. Here's the written account of the statement by "the other bicyclist" (I will use this below, and not the name of the bicyclist or of the officers):

I then contacted Corporal XXXXX and advised him of my investigation. I then asked Corporal XXXXX about his interview with "the other bicyclist." "The other bicyclist" confirmed Urie's account of what happened and also XXX's account. "The other bicyclist" told Corporal XXXXX thathe and McKinnon were riding westbound on NW Wren RD.

He then told Corporal XXXX they were "riding in a straight line" when McKinnon just pulled out into the middle of both lanes. He then saw Urie crash into McKinnon. "The other bicyclist" told Corporal XXXX that McKinnon was "happy and didn't seem suicidal to him."..."The other bicyclist" didn't know if McKinnon looked before he pulled out into both lanes...

At this point, in my own mind, there is no one cause of this accident. I will write a detailed, and probably fairly lengthy, analysis tomorrow or Saturday. I am now far enough away to be objective, and to say some things that may help the bicycling community not only cope with this tragedy, but also prevent future ones.

Before I do so, let me state my qualifications to do so. I am a safety professional, with over 25 years experience in incident/accident investigations on-the-job. I am a member of the American Society of Safety Engineers, and am a Certified Safety Professional (the safety profession's equivalent of a PE). I have also for many years investigated accidents in the scuba diving industry. As I go about this, let me state that I subscribe to the safety theories that embrace "multiple causations" for almost all accidents. I will identify the several factors which probably contributed to this accident, including actions by both the bicyclist and the van driver. I will also quote from the Oregon Driver Manual, which I just picked up today too.

But let me state that what I have found does not contradict the basic findings of the Sheriff's officers, even though we may disagree on some fine points. This is not "Amerika," as one cyclist stated above--this is Washington County, in the State of Oregon, United States of America. People here are innocent until proven guilty. My ultimate findings will be that the driver could not have prevented this fatality, and that we bicyclists need to be aware of some limitations too. But more on that later.

I have enclosed a photo of the area. You can see in the foreground the marker for the "250" foot mark from the sign warning of the stop ahead. You can see the roadway, the fog line, the double lines down the middle of the lanes, and the distance to the intersection. The farm house shown in the photo is just on the other side of the intersection.

Tomorrow, I'll spend more time on this, and if I finish will post it.

John

[Dchiefransom]

D. The other cyclist didn't understand the van driver's responsibilities, or her/his rights (or those of the cyclist who was killed) in situations like this.
E. The other cyclist generally doesn't understand the equal rights and responsibilities cyclists have with other vehicles (i.e. you're not "in traffic", you "are traffic"). This could easily have combined with (B) above to produce the report that resulted.


My guess would be that something happened, the result of which was the cyclist suddenly swerving to the left. The pic at the end of this thread makes the pavement look smooth, but how many times have we ourselves done something that caused us to suddenly swerve a couple of feet left or right?
If we stick strictly "By the Book" in accordance with the law, then if we crash without any other vehicles around should we get a ticket for imprudent speed, or not being in control of our vehicle?

[LittleBigMan]

Since the other bicyclist did report the other cyclist swerved in front of the vehicle that hit him, that says to me that the guy who hit him was taken by suprise. Whether or not the driver could have avoided the cyclist if he had been driving more cautiously is hard to know for sure. But whenever you see a cyclist, you should slow down, period.

[John C. Ratliff]

I promised you that I would put together my accident analysis for this crash a while back. Circumstances have prevented me from getting to it until now, but there are some valuable things to be discussed because of this fatality. A week ago yesterday, I took my bicycle out to Wren Road to see it from that perspective. Wren Road is a couple of miles long to where the crash occurred. In this area, there are very few parts of the road that have a simple dashed line. Most areas of the road are dashed with a single stripe, or double lined. So passing is restricted over much of the road from one direction or the other. The area where the crash occurred was close to an intersection, which was noted before, and had a double solid yellow line. Here's what the Oregon Drivers Manual for 2004-2005 says:

A solid yellow line in your lane means you are not allowed to pass. If passing is prohibited for both directions of travel, you will see two solid yellow lines--one in each opposing lane of traffic. Do not cross a solid yellow line on your side of the road to pass another vehicle.

In another part of the publication, the ODOT states:

As a bicyclist in Oregon, you must be aware that bicycles are considered vehicles. You have the same rights, duties and responsibilities as vehicle drivers.

There is no way a vehicle can safely pass a bicyclist on Wren Road without going into the other lane. Here's a photo of the road, with a pickup on it.

[John C. Ratliff]

Having said this, it is possible that the van overtaking McKinnon initiated the pass before getting to the double lines. The car, which had already passed, probably passed legally in an area where the solid line was on the other side of the road.

While we do not know the motivations of Walter McKinnon, we do know that he suddenly swerved out in front of the van when the van was 20 to 50 feet behind the bicyclist. The driver stated that he saw Mr. McKinnon "look back at him." "'I don't know how he didn't see me...'" Urie, the driver of the van stated according to the accident report. I had two thoughts here:

--He was trying to "take the lane," and prevent the van from passing in the "no-pass" zone.
--He looked back, lost control of the bicycle, and swerved into the path of the van.

I looked on my ride for evidence that he had fallen off the roadway, but could not find that. However, we have no information on how experienced Mr. McKinnon was as a bicyclist. He was riding a Cannondale mountain bike, not a road bike.

The critical fact here was the distance behind when he swerved in front of the van. 20 to 50 feet is not very far. The van driver had stated that he had slowed from 55-60 mph (by the way, the Basic Rule for Oregon states that the legal limit on unmarked roadways in 55 mph). So if we assume he was going 40 mph during the pass, his stopping distance is over 150 feet. At 40 mph, with the reaction time of 1.5 seconds, he would have covered 88 feet before he could have reacted (based upon the ODOT chart for passenger cars, not vans). Even at 30 mgp, he would have covered 66 feet before he could have reacted. In short, at that speed and distance, there was no way for the van driver to avoid the bicyclist once he had swerved into his path. Here's the chart I discussed above:

[John C. Ratliff]

Cause of the crash

Now, I'll assign a primary cause to this accident:

*Bicyclist swerved into the path of a passing van.

There are other secondary causes:

*The act of passing in an area where passing was at least questionable from a legal standpoint.
*The experience levels of both the bicyclist and the van driver were probably factors.
*The common behavior of passing when it is possible. The first car could have slowed and prevented this accident too (see the discussion below).

Lessons Learned

What can we learn. When I was riding on Wren Road, there were several other bicyclists on the same road. We all had good rides. Riders need to ride predictably in these areas. Also, we cannot depend upon the drivers to strictly obey the rules of the road. When the road is clear, and a driver can see for over half a mile, he's probably going to initiate a pass, even in the area where it is technically "illegal" to do so according to the roadway markings.

As drivers (and most of us are this too), we need to give bicyclists room. We also can use this to illustrate why it is important, when we are in cars, that we "protect" a bicyclist. For instance, had the first driver slowed down to stay behind these two bicyclists, the van driver would also have done so. I have done this a time or two myself in my van. It's a "blocking manouver," that positively prevents an illegal pass of a bicyclist. If we don't do such things as drivers, we can inadvertently contribute to the accident by establishing the "norm" in this situation.

These are the ways we can help prevent more memorials, such as this one below for Walter, from springing up on our roads. Thoughts anyone?

[madpogue]

If the van driver initiated the pass before the no-passing zone, then he misjudged. It's not good enough, legally, to start a pass in a passing-allowed zone. You have to have enough passing-allowed distance to pull off the entire pass and be back in your lane before the no-passing zone starts. If that wasn't the case, the van driver should not have started the pass in the first place. At that point, the bicyclist had the lane, and the fact that he "swerved" into a space that had, albeit possibly a physical factor in the incident, shouldn't be considered a legal factor.

[bkrownd]

If the van driver initiated the pass before the no-passing zone, then he misjudged. It's not good enough, legally, to start a pass in a passing-allowed zone. You have to have enough passing-allowed distance to pull off the entire pass and be back in your lane before the no-passing zone starts. If that wasn't the case, the van driver should not have started the pass in the first place. At that point, the bicyclist had the lane, and the fact that he "swerved" into a space that had, albeit possibly a physical factor in the incident, shouldn't be considered a legal factor.

I don't think what these vehicles were doing would be considered "passing" by most reasonable people in the USA. "Passing" is thought of as going around a motorized vehicle, while one merely gives non-motorized traffic necessary space while going on by. Also, the van ended up in the other lane as a result of swerving to avoid an unexpected obstacle, in which case the lines don't really apply. IF the bike moved across the lane unexpectedly, then a collision was probably inevitable. A reasonable bike rider in control would not do that. (a kid on a bike, however, will get far more sympathy since you should expect kids to do stupid things) As much as people here like to think they're "traffic", it is definitely a minority opinion. You can point at the "law" all you want, but everybody knows that where laws and common practice diverge, common practice wins. (e.g. speed limits, rolling stops, etc) We need to be mindful of the way things really work if we're going to save our skins. All this arguing over technicalities of passing is totally beside the point in the real world. The bike *apparently* swerved across the lane unexpectedly, which I'll wager 90% of Americans would tell you puts him clearly in the wrong. Well, IMHO anyway.

bkr

[randya]

I don't think what these vehicles were doing would be considered "passing" by most reasonable people in the USA. "Passing" is thought of as going around a motorized vehicle, while one merely gives non-motorized traffic necessary space while going on by. Also, the van ended up in the other lane as a result of swerving to avoid an unexpected obstacle, in which case the lines don't really apply. IF the bike moved across the lane unexpectedly, then a collision was probably inevitable. A reasonable bike rider in control would not do that. (a kid on a bike, however, will get far more sympathy since you should expect kids to do stupid things) As much as people here like to think they're "traffic", it is definitely a minority opinion. You can point at the "law" all you want, but everybody knows that where laws and common practice diverge, common practice wins. (e.g. speed limits, rolling stops, etc) We need to be mindful of the way things really work if we're going to save our skins. All this arguing over technicalities of passing is totally beside the point in the real world. The bike *apparently* swerved across the lane unexpectedly, which I'll wager 90% of Americans would tell you puts him clearly in the wrong. Well, IMHO anyway.

bkr
So fine, you've got motorist mentality. And you're right, in a straight-up majority vote, the motorists win 90 to 10. And the cops and the juries identify with motorists and not bicyclists. Nothing anyone has said here in defense of the motorist in this case absolves this motorist in particular, and all motorists in general, from responsibly exercising due caution with their WMDs in the vicinity of bicyclists, pedestrians and other vulnerable road users, who may in fact behave in unpredictable ways (from the motorist's perspective, naturally). Lack of driver training, poor motoring habits and skills, and inattentive and distracted drivers combine for 42,000 annual highway deaths each year in the US, the vast majority of which is actually motorist on motorist violence. I think this number speaks for itself... :eek:

[madpogue]

I don't think what these vehicles were doing would be considered "passing" by most reasonable people in the USA. They were passing. Anyone who doesn't "consider" it passing isn't reasonable (and, incidentally [or perhaps not], shouldn't be licensed to drive).


As much as people here like to think they're "traffic", it is definitely a minority opinion. You can point at the "law" all you want, but everybody knows that where laws and common practice diverge, common practice wins. (e.g. speed limits, rolling stops, etc) We need to be mindful of the way things really work if we're going to save our skins. All this arguing over technicalities of passing is totally beside the point in the real world. "Common practice wins" only when society allows it to. Putting the onus on the victim perpetuates that notion ("she shouldn't have been walking down the street dressed like that..."). Does this mean that moving abruptly across a lane should be encouraged, even when the traffic behind you should yield? No, of course not. This isn't about what the bicyclist should have done; he obviously can't do anything about it now. It's about the culpability of the van driver. Think of it this way: given any crash in which there are two (or more) contributing factors, one involves misjudgement and the other involves violation of the law, the latter can't be dismissed on account of the former. Yeah, good judgement should always prevail, but after the fact, there are two issues at hand, One, what should everyone (car drivers and cyclists) learn from it (answer: people should both obey the law and use good judgement), and two, what should be done legally with those involved (answer: the law still applies, regardless of the judgement of the parties).

[John C. Ratliff]

I'm not sure where I'm going with this from here. We have dissected this crash and gotten a lot of good information. Usually, in my work, I implement a series of "action steps" to try to prevent these kinds of accidents. So I am proposing at least two action steps for myself concerning these events:

1. I will approach the Bicycle Transportation Alliance in Portland, and the Westside Transportation Alliance in the Washington County area, to get their input (already I have e-mailed their websites with the URL for this thread).

2. I will probably write the Washington County Sheriff, explain this investigation, and ask him to propose steps to ensure that the entire accident is investigated and the reports written accurately, the officers ensure that all the rules of the road are enforced, and that both the bicyclist and the driver(s) get a fair hearing.

The situation here is not unique; the fact that it resulted in a fatality is due to the chance occurrance that the bicyclist swerved a few feet to his right. This can happen because of a number of factors, and drivers need to be aware of this potential. But to truly prevent this situation from a reoccurrance, we need a culture change. We all need to be active in reinforcing good bicycling behaviors, and instilling in the driving public the need to relax a bit, drive with courtesy, and be aware of all the hazards around you.

John

[randya]

I like your steps #1 and 2...I think appropriate staff at ODOT and WashCo DOT should be notified as well...your perserverence in following this up is commended, as well...Thnx!!! :)