Commuting - Cyclist killed Today :(

June 26, 2009 02:29 PM

A man, believed to be in his 60s, is dead after a bicycle and a sport utility vehicle collided in Vaughan Friday morning.

Just heard about it on the news. It is always sad when something like this happens

http://www.yorkregion.com/article/93752


At about 9:25 a.m., a 2005 Chevrolet Trailblazer was stopped at red light facing southbound on Islington Avenue waiting to make a left to head east on Hwy. 7, according to Const. Marina Orlovski.

When the light turned green, the Trailblazer pulled out and was struck on the drivers’ side door by a cyclist headed west on Hwy. 7, Const. Orlovski said.

The bike’s male rider, who was not wearing a helmet, was pronounced dead at the scene.

Police were working to conclusively identify the man as of 2:30 p.m., Const. Orlovski said.

Several witnesses remained at the scene to assist police with the investigation, she added.

If you have any information, call police at 1-866-876-5423, ext. 7703, Crime Stoppers at 1-800-222-TIPS, leave a tip at www.1800222tips.com or text TIPYORK and your message to CRIMES (274637)

If the driver's story is accurate, it was a simple case of running a red light by a bike.

Helmetless rider blows a red light with predictable consequences.

Some people die of stupid.

Oh, and I think the OP should correct the thread title to:

Cyclist kills himself today.

Helmetless rider blows a red light with predictable consequences.

Not necessarily. We have a number of locations locally where a cyclist can enter the intersection legally and the light cycle is too quick at common cycling speeds to get across before the opposing direction gets a green light. Especially on highways which are wider (take longer to cross) and where the timing may be based on an assumption of higher speed traffic. In the California Vehicle Code (which I think is pretty typical) there is an explicit requirement that drivers proceeding with a green light still yield to pedestrians and any vehicles that are already legally in the intersection.

Obviously I don't know the details about what happened in this case, but the description doesn't make it clear that the cyclist was at fault.

Helmetless rider blows a red light with predictable consequences.

Not so predictable as all that. I only drive occasionally in New Orleans. Weekend dates with my wife mostly as we are a one car family. I would say over the past ten years, if I proceeded across a green light without looking for red light runners, I would be dead at least twice. And I would probably have AT LEAST a hundred notches on my steering wheel for idiot cyclists and pedestrians killed by me, although not my fault.

Rule #1. Look both ways before you cross the street, light colors be damned!

I run, on average, 16,000 red lights and stop signs combined each year just on my commute! Been doing that for 30 years and not one scratch. Ya know why? Yup. I look both ways, even when crossing one way streets. I look both ways when I have the right of way, and I look both ways when I don't. It is sooo simple.

rule #1. Look both ways before you cross the street, light colors be damned!


+100000000000000000

Not necessarily. We have a number of locations locally where a cyclist can enter the intersection legally and the light cycle is too quick at common cycling speeds to get across before the opposing direction gets a green light. Especially on highways which are wider (take longer to cross) and where the timing may be based on an assumption of higher speed traffic. In the California Vehicle Code (which I think is pretty typical) there is an explicit requirement that drivers proceeding with a green light still yield to pedestrians and any vehicles that are already legally in the intersection.

Obviously I don't know the details about what happened in this case, but the description doesn't make it clear that the cyclist was at fault.


I had to do a double take, I though I was in the AnS forum.

I think the description makes it crystal clear that the cyclist was at fault. Red light, t-bone. Doesn't get much clearer than that.

I had to do a double take, I though I was in the AnS forum.

I think the description makes it crystal clear that the cyclist was at fault. Red light, t-bone. Doesn't get much clearer than that.

Well, let's think about that.

Looking at the intersection in Google Maps, it appears that it's approximately 80 feet from the second crosswalk line across the westbound lanes of Highway 7 to the eastern side of the left-turn lane on southbound Islington. Let's assume that the rider was moving along at 10 mph - that's around 15 feet per second, so it would take just over five seconds to cross those 80 feet. Now, I don't know the speed limit on Highway 7, but judging from the satellite view let's take a guess that it's about 60 km/h, or roughly 40 mph. An appropriate yellow light time for a stoplight on a 40 mph road is 3.9 seconds. Thus, if we assume that the light changed to yellow as the cyclist entered the intersection (in which case he is legally entitled to finish crossing), he'd still be a second away from crossing in front of the left turn lane when the light went to red. If, during that second, the SUV moved into the intersection, he'd hit it, yet not legally be at fault since he was in the intersection legally.

Obviously, there are a lot of assumptions here regarding the length of the yellow light, the cyclist's speed, his position in the lane, where he was when the light changed, and whether there was any time period during which all directions of travel had red lights to allow the final cars to clear the intersection before the cross traffic got a green light. The point is, if you don't know all of this information, you can't accurately judge whether the cyclist or the driver was at fault.

One thing is clear, though: If the driver had followed Joey's rule #1 above, the cyclist would not have hit him.

If the driver's story is accurate, it was a simple case of running a red light by a bike.

And sans helmet. It's sad yes...but...

Wow, how nice of people to label a dead man "stupid." Even if a person did a somewhat thoughtless thing (and I don't know this one did) that led to his or her death, the fact is, I think, sad, not worthy of scorn.

It looks like the cyclist was at fault this time ie. if the story is accurate...but it's still very sad news. No need to be mean and critical, because anybody can make a mistake.

Well, let's think about that.

Looking at the intersection in Google Maps, it appears that it's approximately 80 feet from the second crosswalk line across the westbound lanes of Highway 7 to the eastern side of the left-turn lane on southbound Islington. Let's assume that the rider was moving along at 10 mph - that's around 15 feet per second, so it would take just over five seconds to cross those 80 feet. Now, I don't know the speed limit on Highway 7, but judging from the satellite view let's take a guess that it's about 60 km/h, or roughly 40 mph. An appropriate yellow light time for a stoplight on a 40 mph road is 3.9 seconds. Thus, if we assume that the light changed to yellow as the cyclist entered the intersection (in which case he is legally entitled to finish crossing), he'd still be a second away from crossing in front of the left turn lane when the light went to red. If, during that second, the SUV moved into the intersection, he'd hit it, yet not legally be at fault since he was in the intersection legally.

Obviously, there are a lot of assumptions here regarding the length of the yellow light, the cyclist's speed, his position in the lane, where he was when the light changed, and whether there was any time period during which all directions of travel had red lights to allow the final cars to clear the intersection before the cross traffic got a green light. The point is, if you don't know all of this information, you can't accurately judge whether the cyclist or the driver was at fault.

One thing is clear, though: If the driver had followed Joey's rule #1 above, the cyclist would not have hit him.

If he was traveling that slowly, it's unlikely he would have been killed. Also, the point of entering the intersection while the light is still green or perhaps just turning yellow is valid, for a car traveling at the posted speed as he will be through the intersection in time. If you are plodding along slowly on a bike, you had best be glancing up at that light as you pass through and ensure that you don't end up smack in the middle of the intersection while the crossing traffic has the green light.

I'm really not certain exactly what the law reads in this regard, but, imo, it doesn't really matter. If I put myself in a position where I am counting on crossing traffic to look for me prior to proceeding on a green light, then I am quite simply, easy pickings for chuck darwin.

Not happy to ever read about a cyclist being taken out, but, when one goes out like this, assuming the account is right, I don't lose any sleep over it.

Cyclists being mowed down from behind by dooshbags on their cell phones is a different story. That scares the hell out of me.

Wow, how nice of people to label a dead man "stupid." Even if a person did a somewhat thoughtless thing (and I don't know this one did) that led to his or her death, the fact is, I think, sad, not worthy of scorn.

No, dead men aren't stupid. They're just dead. If this guy did what is claimed, he sure as hell did something stupid, which, IMO goes way beyond somewhat thoughtless.

If somewhat thoughtless was likely to get you dead, I think we'd all be done for. I know I would.

RIP, anyway.

An appropriate yellow light time for a stoplight on a 40 mph road is 3.9 seconds.

Where did you derive this tidbit of information from?

You leave out the amount of time it takes from a light turning red to the opposing one turning green. Also the amount of reaction time for the driver to realize the light has changed and begin moving. The rate of acceleration, etc, etc, etc.

No timed delay light at this intersection?

Well, let's think about that.

Looking at the intersection in Google Maps, it appears that it's approximately 80 feet from the second crosswalk line across the westbound lanes of Highway 7 to the eastern side of the left-turn lane on southbound Islington. Let's assume that the rider was moving along at 10 mph - that's around 15 feet per second, so it would take just over five seconds to cross those 80 feet. Now, I don't know the speed limit on Highway 7, but judging from the satellite view let's take a guess that it's about 60 km/h, or roughly 40 mph. An appropriate yellow light time for a stoplight on a 40 mph road is 3.9 seconds. Thus, if we assume that the light changed to yellow as the cyclist entered the intersection (in which case he is legally entitled to finish crossing), he'd still be a second away from crossing in front of the left turn lane when the light went to red. If, during that second, the SUV moved into the intersection, he'd hit it, yet not legally be at fault since he was in the intersection legally.

Obviously, there are a lot of assumptions here regarding the length of the yellow light, the cyclist's speed, his position in the lane, where he was when the light changed, and whether there was any time period during which all directions of travel had red lights to allow the final cars to clear the intersection before the cross traffic got a green light. The point is, if you don't know all of this information, you can't accurately judge whether the cyclist or the driver was at fault.

One thing is clear, though: If the driver had followed Joey's rule #1 above, the cyclist would not have hit him.

The cyclist was heading westbound, which is a large downhill into the humber valley. Easy to get up to 60kms/hr on that stretch. Also at 9:25AM there was probably bright sun at his back.

That said, that intersection sucks. Its super high volume and drivers in that part of town are reliably careless and agressive.

So, 2 people know what really happened (well, 1 now I suppose), the rest is speculation.

All we have is the driver's side of the story. It 'sounds' like the rider is at fault, but for all we know the driver jumped the light and there isn't anyone's story to contradict what he told police.

He should have been wearing a helmet, but either way it is still unfortunate he had to die.

Not necessarily. We have a number of locations locally where a cyclist can enter the intersection legally and the light cycle is too quick at common cycling speeds to get across before the opposing direction gets a green light. Especially on highways which are wider (take longer to cross) and where the timing may be based on an assumption of higher speed traffic. In the California Vehicle Code (which I think is pretty typical) there is an explicit requirement that drivers proceeding with a green light still yield to pedestrians and any vehicles that are already legally in the intersection.

Obviously I don't know the details about what happened in this case, but the description doesn't make it clear that the cyclist was at fault.

My brain tells me that if that were the case he should have been able to stop in time to miss the driver side door of the SUV. I'm not saying this as an absolute, just saying that him running a red sounds a lot more likely.

All we have is the driver's side of the story. It 'sounds' like the rider is at fault, but for all we know the driver jumped the light and there isn't anyone's story to contradict what he told police.

He should have been wearing a helmet, but either way it is still unfortunate he had to die.

This sounds like the most plausible way for the driver to be at fault: He pulled out before he had the green. Lying is always a possibility.

...Several witnesses remained at the scene to assist police with the investigation, she added.

Maybe we'll actually learn the truth... I'll lay odds at this point that the cyclist was at fault based on the preponderance of evidence.

This sounds like the most plausible way for the driver to be at fault: He pulled out before he had the green. Lying is always a possibility.


Maybe we'll actually learn the truth... I'll lay odds at this point that the cyclist was at fault based on the preponderance of evidence.

The truth rarely matters here, the motorist is always at fault.

I have to admit that I'm always suspicious that the motorist might be at fault, and I think past events justify that. At least the motorist didn't say "he swerved" in this case. It does seem to me that stop lights/stop signs at the bottom of hills are approached with an incredibly dangerous mindset by many cyclists. I prefer to lose a lot of kinetic energy rather than lose my life.

Something happened - we can't know for sure what. The victim of the occurence is dead and can't defend himself. The only other person who *might* know what happened (or might not - perhaps he was distracted, did not note exactly what colour the lights were, made an honest mistake etc. etc.) has a lot of interest in convincing us that it was the victim's fault. Given such a situation it seems wrong to me to just assign all blame to the victim without any further investigation. I know that's what many cyclists would prefer to do so, since it makes them feel safer ("oh, it won't happen to me if I'm careful and don't blow red lights"), but such wishful thinking, in absence of very solid evidence, merits much disdain.

It's likely we'll never know for sure what happened, even with eyewitness accounts. One thing we do know though is that the man is now dead. A tragic and sobering fact. My condolences to his friends and family.

He should have been wearing a helmet No such thread is complete without the helmet nannies, sure. Never mind that there is absolutely no reason to believe that a helmet would have made any difference. They'll never miss a chance to preach their favourite mantra.

this is one of those examples where wearing a helmet probably would have saved him. I don't see how you can argue with that. Planning on getting run over, sure, skip the helmet, you're gonna die.

"The bike’s male rider, who was not wearing a helmet, was pronounced dead at the scene."

More subtle-jab reporting.
The implication being the lack of helmet caused death.

News reports are often full of extraneous information irrelevant to the outcome but implied to be part of the cause:
"The injured child, whose mother is only 17, was taken to the hospital by ambulance."
"The pedestrian, who was returning from the welfare office, was listed in critical condition."
"The **** victim, who was on her way home from a party, has provided a description to police."
"The alleged perpetrator, who is black, denied being at the scene when the crime occurred."

this is one of those examples where wearing a helmet probably would have saved him. I don't see how you can argue with that. Only someone who is completely ignorant and brainwashed could make such a statement. We don't even know that the death was caused by a brain injury. If it in fact was, we don't know whether in the absence of brain injury it still would not have been caused by massive internal trauma. Finally we don't know whether a helmet would have softened the impact enough to make the brain injury a non-lethal one: as helmet manufacturers and testers all point out, a helmet is made for the "simple fall at low speed" scenario, and if you're bombing down the hill at 60 km/h and T-bone a car, the portion of the overall impact that a helmet can absorb is probably minuscule and in many, if not most, cases negligible. Look at motorcycle helmets: since motorbikers don't exert themselves when riding, their helmets can be made to be MUCH bigger, MUCH hotter, MUCH heavier - and still they don't necessarily always save you at speeds like that. Now look at a bike helmet, which clearly is a compromise between protection and weight.

But never mind, those who believe in the holy power of the bicycle helmet and that it will always, always, always save you. Yeah. Right. Talk about the power of propaganda.

I agree on your point chephy, but what do you think the motivation is behind this kind of reporting?

You can't argue that the person with the helmet would receive less total injuries than the same rider without a helmet simply for the fact that the helmet would at least offer some protection in certain instances. I'm not sure why they always focus on the helmet though.

For what its worth, my worst accident ever was getting doored and smashing my elbow into 5 pieces. I WAS wearing a helmet, but I unfortunately was NOT wearing elbow pads so looks like I lose.

You can't argue that the person with the helmet would receive less total injuries than the same rider without a helmet simply for the fact that the helmet would at least offer some protection in certain instances. First of all, you can: there is some evidence that in some cases, a helmet can add to torsional insuries (which are the worst kinds of brain injuries), especially a helmet with an oblong shape. Also, in some cases the number and severity of injuries would be so ovewhelming that it ultimately results in death (or brain injury etc.) and reducing the severity a bit would result in the same outcome and won't make a 'coon turd's worth of difference.


I'm not sure why they always focus on the helmet though. It's the holy cow of cycling in North America. I think the society focuses on helmets because it's so EASY to focus on them. There is a real obsession with *safety* in North America (the root causes for this, sometimes unhealthy, obsession are pretty interesting to examine, but it's a rather different topic), so when it comes to cycling, it's a natural North American instinct to portray it as a dangerous activity and to implement *safety measures* to mitigate the real or imagined risks. But what safety measures could you implement? Buildling good infrastructure, educating drivers and cyclists on safe behaviours - pfft, too hard, too much work and you might piss off the voters (who are car drivers). It's so easy to promote helmets though. No need to change anything - the car will still rule the continent, all road users will still pull dimwitted moves due to lack of real cycling and driving education and cycling culture... but no matter! You can wear A HELMET. See, it's a piece of SAFETY EQUIPMENT, so it MUST BE GOOD! IT WILL SAVE YOU!!! Helmeted cyclist = good safe cyclist, unhelmeted cyclist = bad, stupid unsafe cyclist.

This is all a typical North American knows about cycling and cycling safety: though shalt wear a helmet. The actual effectiveness of it does not really matter, no one really cares about it: it's assumed to be effective and important in preventing injuries, because you can't criticize SAFETY EQUIPMENT, that would be total non-PC blasphemy. A reporter is, most likely, a pretty typical North American (at least when it comes to knowledge about and attitude towards cycling), so he/she naturally mentions the detail that he/she considers THE crucial cycling safety issue.

I agree with you on the general acceptance of the helmet as the ultimate piece of safety equipment, but I still think that even with the risk of injury caused BY the helmet, if you fell off and hit your head you'd do better with than without. Same as you could cut off your circulation or get a rash from knee pads, but when knee hits asphalt the knee pad probably wins.

I'd also argue that per capita, a cyclist is more likely to vote than a driver! Do you have any idea how hard it is to find parking near the polls! Too bad there are so many more car drivers than cyclists though...

I'm just being the devil's advocate though and I agree with you. In other news, were you at CM last night? Best one in a while!

I agree with you on the general acceptance of the helmet as the ultimate piece of safety equipment, but I still think that even with the risk of injury caused BY the helmet, if you fell off and hit your head you'd do better with than without. I can't agree with you. Torsional injuries are the nastiest kind of brain injury, and if helmets do actually cause or contribute to them, I can very well imagine that in some cases the damage caused by a helmet might be worse than the damage prevented. Of course, there is not nearly enough evidence one way or the other, so the best I can say for certain, while remaining intellectually honest, is that we don't know how much protection a helmet offers and whether it sometimes makes the situation worse. But too many people are unsatisfied when there is any kind of uncertainty. They are told that helmets will save you, and accept it as the ultimate, unshakeable truth. Quick easy fixes, "no-brainers" (wink-wink), simple rules, and wild, sweeping generalization - the collective conscience craves this kind of stuff. Uncertainty, scientific exploration, careful wording - nah, give us a three-word mantra we can chant over and over to save the world.


In other news, were you at CM last night? Best one in a while! No, I haven't been to CMs for a while. Planning to make it to the Pride Parade though, even if though the weather is looking to be less than ideal. :)

"The bike’s male rider, who was not wearing a helmet, was pronounced dead at the scene."

More subtle-jab reporting.
The implication being the lack of helmet caused death.

News reports are often full of extraneous information irrelevant to the outcome but implied to be part of the cause:
"The injured child, whose mother is only 17, was taken to the hospital by ambulance."
"The pedestrian, who was returning from the welfare office, was listed in critical condition."
"The **** victim, who was on her way home from a party, has provided a description to police."
"The alleged perpetrator, who is black, denied being at the scene when the crime occurred."

It's called reporting. If you draw the conclusion that they're implying it as the cause of death, so be it. Honestly, this cyclist as the victim attitude belongs over in the AnS forum.

Where did you derive this tidbit of information from?

You leave out the amount of time it takes from a light turning red to the opposing one turning green. Also the amount of reaction time for the driver to realize the light has changed and begin moving. The rate of acceleration, etc, etc, etc.

There's also a very real possibility that the driver didn't enter after the light turned green, but 'jumped' the light a bit and hit the gas as soon as he saw the opposing light turn red. I see that a LOT around here.

It's called reporting.

Was the driver of the car wearing his seatbelt? What type of bike was the rider on?

There's a couple of seconds between lights. The rider, who I assume lived to be 60 by at least being somewhat cautious either took the gamble that he could clear the intersection before the cars started moving... or the other guy jumped the light. Perhaps a combination of both. We'll never know.

He might of made it to 60 by luck.

Without a videotape of the accident, it really is hard to say what happened.

Bottom line, assume you are invisible on a bike and ride that way. Don't give brain dead morons in cages the chance to do something stupid as they surely will sooner or later.

As for the helmet mention in the report. I think it's good.

You can argue the cases where having a helmet might add to the danger. I hear the same arguments used against motorcycle helmet and seatbelt use. Honestly, I really don't care what others wear and I am 100% against nanny state laws telling us what to wear/drive/eat/smoke/inject into our bodies. I do not however have a problem with those same nannies nagging, uhhh, I mean expressing their opinions. If somebody read that report and decided to start wearing a helmet, good on him. If someone is offended by what they perceive as condecending nagging in news articles, get over yourself. They are free to nag. You are free to ignore them or maybe even tell them to go F themselves.

It's all about freedom, which includes freedom to be stupid.

No such thread is complete without the helmet nannies, sure. Never mind that there is absolutely no reason to believe that a helmet would have made any difference. They'll never miss a chance to preach their favourite mantra.

Want some cheese with that whine?

Want some cheese with that whine?

Make mine white cheddar. The sharper the better. And yeah, know, cheese ain't any good for me. I make up for it by wearing not just a helmet, but a fredly helmet mounted mirror as well. :)

This is a very sad story. Based on some of the crap I see other riders doing when I commute, my believe is that most accidents are the bicyclist's fault. Especially when you look at the attitude on these forums, where people think it's cool to run red lights, not use sidewalks, get into vehicle left turn lanes, bowing around right turn lanes instead of yielding, etc.

i guess you dont wear seatbelts in the car either?

I can't agree with you. Torsional injuries are the nastiest kind of brain injury, and if helmets do actually cause or contribute to them, I can very well imagine that in some cases the damage caused by a helmet might be worse than the damage prevented. Of course, there is not nearly enough evidence one way or the other, so the best I can say for certain, while remaining intellectually honest, is that we don't know how much protection a helmet offers and whether it sometimes makes the situation worse. But too many people are unsatisfied when there is any kind of uncertainty. They are told that helmets will save you, and accept it as the ultimate, unshakeable truth. Quick easy fixes, "no-brainers" (wink-wink), simple rules, and wild, sweeping generalization - the collective conscience craves this kind of stuff. Uncertainty, scientific exploration, careful wording - nah, give us a three-word mantra we can chant over and over to save the world.

No, I haven't been to CMs for a while. Planning to make it to the Pride Parade though, even if though the weather is looking to be less than ideal. :)

What exactly are torsional brain injuries? A quick Medline search yields not a single journal article that mentions such a phenomenon. I've heard this refrain so many times from the anti-helmet crowd, that certain injuries can be exacerbated by a helmet, that it rings hollow. It's the same argument put forward by the anti-seatbelt crowd. Yes, there are instances where a seatbelt can decrease your survivability, but that is far outweighed by the many more instances where it will increase your survivability. From every journal article I've reviewed concerning survivability in bicycle collisions with and without helmets, the increase in survivability is real and statistically significant with helmet use.

How about some evidence to substantiate your claims?

This is a very sad story. Based on some of the crap I see other riders doing when I commute, my believe is that most accidents are the bicyclist's fault. Especially when you look at the attitude on these forums, where people think it's cool to run red lights, not use sidewalks, get into vehicle left turn lanes, bowing around right turn lanes instead of yielding, etc.

I've been in a LOT of collisions (mostly very minor) with cars... NONE of them have legally been my fault. Several I could have avoided by taking extreme evasive maneuvers and chose to take the hit, instead.


What exactly are torsional brain injuries? A quick Medline search yields not a single journal article that mentions such a phenomenon. I've heard this refrain so many times from the anti-helmet crowd, that certain injuries can be exacerbated by a helmet, that it rings hollow. It's the same argument put forward by the anti-seatbelt crowd. Yes, there are instances where a seatbelt can decrease your survivability, but that is far outweighed by the many more instances where it will increase your survivability. From every journal article I've reviewed concerning survivability in bicycle collisions with and without helmets, the increase in survivability is real and statistically significant with helmet use.

How about some evidence to substantiate your claims?

Rotational injuries... you can find articles on them.

and... my uncle died because his car landed upside down in a canal... onlookers couldn't get him out of the seatbelt and he drowned in 2 feet of water. His passenger, who wasn't belted in was pulled out and survived.

The biggest difference between helmets and seatbelts in my mind is that seatbelts are designed, tested, and PROVEN beyond doubt to improve safety and save lives in the types of accidents drivers get into on a regular basis.

Helmets on the other hand don't meet any of these criteria.

They're designed to protect in a fall at 0mph from 6 feet height. (ie: falling over while stopped)
There are no studies that prove with a scientific certainty that helmets offer any real protection in any other type of accident. The vast majority of studies that do appear to show large improvements in safety during accidents have HUGE scientific flaws.

"Torsion" is described as the twisting of an object due to applied torque, so a "torsional injury" (probably more properly a "torsion injury") would be an injury caused by a twisting action -- presumably, in this case, somehow caused by the presence of a helmet. Clearly such an injury would not be a brain injury, but would be an injury to the neck instead. From what I remember from my EMT training, this isn't a common mechanism of cervical spine injury, but I suppose anything's possible.

may be a typical case of suv driver not giving a crap about a biker. also doesn't explain any intangible dynamics at play - such as was the biker a homeless type vagabond and was the driver an anti personality type, meaning most opposite of the vagabond - and who would intentionally say: 'f-you biker - I've got the green you have to stop, but the biker thinks the suv will stay put, but didn't know cuz he couldn't see the drivers face, due to glare or tinted windows. I sometimes struggle to see a drivers face and who knows what they are thinking seeing me look at at them, they might think I've giving them the go-ahead to proceed, when in fact I'm just looking to make eye contact. like 2 people wearing headphones arguing with each other because one thinks the other said something to start a fight and it escalates because both parties can' hear what the other is saying and they both assume the worst.

The biggest difference between helmets and seatbelts in my mind is that seatbelts are designed, tested, and PROVEN beyond doubt to improve safety and save lives in the types of accidents drivers get into on a regular basis.

Helmets on the other hand don't meet any of these criteria.

They're designed to protect in a fall at 0mph from 6 feet height. (ie: falling over while stopped)
There are no studies that prove with a scientific certainty that helmets offer any real protection in any other type of accident. The vast majority of studies that do appear to show large improvements in safety during accidents have HUGE scientific flaws.

How high above the ground is your head when you ride? :rolleyes:

But seriously, I understand that they don't put helmets on crash test dummies and push them down big hills on bikes, with the sensors on and the cameras rolling. But I have crashed in the 15 mph range. The helmet, with my head in it, fell less than 6 feet and struck the ground. The helmet, with my head in it, also had a forward velocity. Despite having significant road rash and a broken thumb, the first thoughts that I had were that I had whacked my head very, very hard. I even remained still on the ground for a moment waiting for the headache and bleeding to begin. Nothing happened. The helmet had a barely noticeable dent in the surface. It was proof enough for me that a bicycle helmet was designed well enough for the kind of crashes a cyclist is likely to get into. But I don't expect to ride into any walls or other non-yielding objects without serious injury or death - a bicycle helmet designed for such an event would not be very comfortable or practical.

Please note I am not advocating madatory helmet rules, just that I do think they are designed adequately.

may be a typical case of suv driver not giving a crap about a biker. also doesn't explain any intangible dynamics at play -


Where do people like you come from?

Clearly such an injury would not be a brain injury, but would be an injury to the neck instead. Not so clearly. It is a brain injury. Check out this link, for instance: http://members.pcug.org.au/~psvansch/crag/h-i-mech.htm


I've heard this refrain so many times from the anti-helmet crowd, that certain injuries can be exacerbated by a helmet, that it rings hollow. Check out the link above, for starters. By the way, I am not claiming that helmets definitely contribute to brain injuries. It's just a plausible hypothesis based on some basic knowledge of physics and biology. It has not really been researched, and thus has not been proven or disproven. But since it remains quite a real possibility, claims that you must always be better off with a helmet are unsubstantiated and ignorant. It is certainly not very confidence-inspiring that bike helmet testing standards only involve tests for linear impacts, when rotational impacts are known to be by far the most severe and likely to cause serious brain damage.

If the driver's story is accurate, it was a simple case of running a red light by a bike.

I too disagree, if the cyclist had a green light when he entered the intersection he may have not had enough time to cross it before the light changed. The car driver can't mow someone down just because they have a green light.

I run into this situation from time to time when crossing arterials. Typically I wait for the light to turn green, sprint as fast as I can slightly uphill, and still barely make it across. If a car in front of me is slow off the mark, I can't make it across in time. If a headwind gust hits me, also scary. Doohickie - Vega & AltaMesa going home is one example. I do my best to make myself as visible as possible, but sometimes the car farthest away from me has his line of sight blocked if the other cars are stopped farther forward than they should be. This arterial has to be crossed somewhere, and this particular crossing is better than others.

I too disagree, if the cyclist had a green light when he entered the intersection he may have not had enough time to cross it before the light changed. The car driver can't mow someone down just because they have a green light.

I run into this situation from time to time when crossing arterials. Typically I wait for the light to turn green, sprint as fast as I can slightly uphill, and still barely make it across. If a car in front of me is slow off the mark, I can't make it across in time. If a headwind gust hits me, also scary. Doohickie - Vega & AltaMesa going home is one example. I do my best to make myself as visible as possible, but sometimes the car farthest away from me has his line of sight blocked if the other cars are stopped farther forward than they should be. This arterial has to be crossed somewhere, and this particular crossing is better than others.

Actually, a car can "mow someone down just because they have a green light" And this guy did.

Right of way is pretty clear. Drivers are taught to wait until they have the light, then proceed. Looking both ways is always a good idea, not doing so, does not change the fact that he had the right of way. The law does not read wait till the light changes, then count to 3 slowly and then look both ways.

My attitude on a bike is that it is my job to stay the hell out of the way. Make believe I am the invisible biker. If I am not sure I have the speed to get across an intersection before the light changes, it is my job to either stop, or be damn certain my potential executioner knows I am there.

If you ride with any expectation of cagers not just following the law, but, being extra careful, I hope your life insurance is paid up.

As far as I am concerned, I think that intersections are actually pretty safe. I think this because this is a situation where I go in looking for trouble. If I ever get myself dead on a bike I am pretty certain it won't be at an intersection. It will likely be a case of being run down from behind by a distracted cager.

If I ever get myself dead on a bike I am pretty certain it won't be at an intersection. It will likely be a case of being run down from behind by a distracted cager.

+1 - that is why I run all the red lights I can - to limit the number of cars having a legitimate shot at me from behind when I am the most at risk and can't do much about it.

Either that or someone parked on the wrong side of a 2-way street unparking themselves into me.