Advocacy & Safety - cyclist seriously hurt after running stop sign

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/accidents/article1024169.ece

SAFETY HARBOR — A bicyclist was seriously injured when he crossed into the path of a motorist and was hit Sunday afternoon, according to the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office.

Steven Merrill, 39, of 864 Harbor Hills Drive, was taken by helicopter to Bayfront Medical Center in St. Petersburg with injuries that appeared to be life-threatening.

Merrill was eastbound on his bicycle on Third Street North around 4 p.m. when he went through a stop sign and was hit by 69-year-old Frank Leko, who driving his 1999 Mercedes Benz northbound on 10th Avenue North, deputies said.

Merrill was ejected from his bicycle and struck his head on the pavement. He was not wearing a helmet.

Leko, also of Safety Harbor, had the right of way and has not been charged in the accident. Alcohol and speed were not factors in the crash, deputies said.

Moral of the story: only blow through stop signs when you know it's safe to do so.

Use some logic here:

1. No external witnesses noted,
2. Only persons who can provide explanations of the event are the motorist and the cyclist,
3. Cyclist was airlifted from the scene with injuries that likely prevented him from giving a statement.

Any reports of "what happened" are therefore suspect.

-Kurt

Use some logic here:

1. No external witnesses noted,
2. Only persons who can provide explanations of the event are the motorist and the cyclist,
3. Cyclist was airlifted from the scene with injuries that likely prevented him from giving a statement.

Any reports of "what happened" are therefore suspect.

-Kurt
You're right. The cyclist could have been drunk and riding a fixie with no brakes...we really don't know.

Seriously though, I hope the guy recovers, regardless of who was at fault. That being said, I also hope that if he (the cyclist) is found to be at fault that he is fined and made to pay for any damage done to the other vehicle.

Merrill was ejected from his bicycle and struck his head on the pavement.he would be fine if he had been wearing a helmet. ;)

So this is what happens in "Safety Harbor"?

Irrespective of fault, best wishes to the cyclist for a full and speedy recovery.

Moral of the story: only blow through stop signs when you know it's safe to do so.

I will bet you this rider 'knew' it was safe--right up until the time he was hit.

I will bet you this rider 'knew' it was safe--right up until the time he was hit.

A&S clairvoyance?

Why no mention of witnesses? Sloppy reporting, or did the cops take the drivers word for what happened?

Why no mention of witnesses? Sloppy reporting, or did the cops take the drivers word for what happened?

Of course. Since when have you heard of a fair and balanced situation wherein the cyclist's case is argued for as well in an article? Hardly - and those that do are in the distinct minority.

It is easier for a journalist to push out a two-bit article written with a slant that the wide public of motorists (jerks and otherwise) can understand, then presenting it from the cyclist's point of view, or for that matter, from both points of view with no bias.

Frankly, the sloppy, one-sided reporting of these incidents usually ticks me off more then the accident itself.

-Kurt

Use some logic here:

1. No external witnesses noted,
2. Only persons who can provide explanations of the event are the motorist and the cyclist,
3. Cyclist was airlifted from the scene with injuries that likely prevented him from giving a statement.

Any reports of "what happened" are therefore suspect.

-Kurt

Possibly, although the fact that the biker had a stop sign on his street while the driver did not would tend to support the driver's story. There may have been no witnesses; it doesn't look like a busy intersection.

(The above info courtesy of google street view: http://tinyurl.com/nkznoy

cuda, you need to pull your horns in -- the cyclist isn't always right.

No helmet -- personal choice, in my opinion a dumb one; also, as noted, the cyclist had the stop sign. I hate stopping my roll as much as anybody, but i'll DO it to save my 'ace' from being gutter salad.

At fault is secondary here, anyway, since fault won't change the guy's condition....

No helmet -- personal choice, in my opinion a dumb one; also, as noted, the cyclist had the stop sign. I hate stopping my roll as much as anybody, but i'll DO it to save my 'ace' from being gutter salad. The story does not specify whether that was a two-way stop or a four-way stop. If it's the latter, we only have the driver's word for who had the right-of-way at the time...

A&S clairvoyance?

Noooo, we can be sure that if the guy knew he was going to be hit, he would not have gone through, hence we can assume he did not know he was going to be hit, therefore it is likely he 'knew' he wouldn't get hit.

The story does not specify whether that was a two-way stop or a four-way stop. If it's the latter, we only have the driver's word for who had the right-of-way at the time...

If the Google Street view link above does indeed show the intersection in question, the cyclist had a stop sign, the vehicle did not. It looks like the cause of this one could indeed be the cyclist.

Having said that, I, of course, wish him a good recovery.

The story does not specify whether that was a two-way stop or a four-way stop. If it's the latter, we only have the driver's word for who had the right-of-way at the time...

Sometimes the evidence speaks for itself. The cyclist was coming from a street which had a STOP sign posted at the intersection. Assuming it wasn't a 4-way stop, the motorist on the crossing street had the right of way. Had the cyclist STOPPED and YIELDED as required by law, there would not have been a collision.

If you make a habit of running red lights and stop signs, you're gonna hit hit. Someday, the statistics will catch up with you.

If you make a habit of running red lights and stop signs, you're gonna hit hit. Someday, the statistics will catch up with you.

Which statistics are those?

Which statistics are those?

The law of averages. Do you feel lucky today?

The law of averages. Do you feel lucky today?

Luck has nothing to do with it (of course).

Would you prefer "Law of Averages" and probability?

Let's look at a hypothetical intersection. Let's imagine that an imaginary two way stop intersection that gets 2-3 cars per minute. We'll average it to 2.5. Let's say that the car is in the "point of no return" for 1.5 seconds. The "point of no return" will be defined as the point where they will not be able to do anything to avoid hitting the cyclist. This means that for every minute, there are 3.75 seconds that are not safe for the cyclist to blow through the stop sign. 56.25 seconds of every minute are completely safe. That gives the cyclist a 6.25% chance of getting hit at this intersection each time he blows through the stop sign, with a 93.75% chance of making it through safely.

So, if we calculate the chance of getting hit in 10 crossings: 0.9375 ^ 10 = 0.5244604..., or a 52.446% chance of not being hit.

20 crossings = 27.506% chance of not being hit.
30 crossings = 14.426% chance of not being hit.
40 crossings = 7.566% chance of not being hit.
50 crossings = 3.968% chance of not being hit.
.
.
.
.
100 crossings = 0.157% chance of not being hit.

And so on, and so forth. It, of course, never reaches a 100% chance of being hit, but you're already doing roughly a coin flip by 10 crossings.

NOTE: This assumes that the cyclist blowing through the stop sign is going through it no matter what, with no regard for his safety. I would hope an actual cyclist would show some signs of self preservation. This is only an illustration of how easy probability can catch up with you, even when the odds per encounter are lower.

And it seems some people mentioned the law of averages in posts while I was typing this, but this has some (hypothetical) probability calculations in it, so I'll post it anyway.

From my experience, sometimes even when you look both ways, a car may still suddenly appear last minute. I feel that is exactly what happened to the cyclist.

So if your chances are 0.157% of not being hit that means the intersection is filled with cars 100 - 0.157 = 99.843% of the time or 59.9 seconds out of a minute?

All crossings are independent.

Possibly, although the fact that the biker had a stop sign on his street while the driver did not would tend to support the driver's story.

I am not denying that. My point is that there isn't any room for speculation in favor of the motorist until the other side has been heard.

For instance - consider this hypothetical scenario: The cyclist might have stopped at the sign, checked for traffic, and proceeded to cross the intersection; at which point, said vehicle could have come speeding down the road at 65mph from a blind spot (and potentially inaudible until the last minute due to various sound deflections), and run the cyclist - in the process of crossing the intersection - down.

-Kurt

Which statistics are those?

The ones maintained by Mr. Darwin?

Yes, all crossings are independent, as stated in the post. However, individual probability can be used to calculate the chance of an event happening over an extended number of happenings. They are just that, measurement of chance.

Another example: if I think of a number between 1 and 10 and have someone guess the number I'm thinking of, they have a 10% chance of guessing the correct number. If we do it again, they still have a 10% chance of guessing on that chance, so on and so forth out to 5 chances (each with a 10% chance). However, if we look at the group of 5, each with it's own chance of 10%, they have a probability of not guessing the correct number at least once of 59.05% (0.90 ^ 5). If we extend it to 10 times, they probability that they won't guess the correct number is 34.87%. The probability that they will not guess the correct number decreases with each chance, and approaches 0%, though it never reaches 0%.

The numbers are just that, a measure of mathematical probability.

Just from my observation of casual cyclists around here, he probably blew the stop sign without looking. Either that, or these people have simply amazing peripheral vision. OTOH, I do recognize that there is a possibility that the motorist simply ran over a cyclist going the same way as he was and it was conveniently next to a stop sign.

The ones maintained by Mr. Darwin?

:rolleyes:

From my experience, sometimes even when you look both ways, a car may still suddenly appear last minute. I feel that is exactly what happened to the cyclist.

Wow. Talk about speculation!

Wow. Talk about speculation!

Speculate I did but so did most people who replied to the post. Why do you have to pick on me ;)

More details here:
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2009/aug/02/safety-harbor-man-hospitalized-after-bicycle-crash/news-breaking/

The article indicates that motorist did not have a stop sign but the cyclist did and that he rode through without stopping.

If this is indeed the case, then the cyclist is 100% at fault. He should've made sure the intersection was clear before crossing. Nonetheless he has my sympathies.

Yes, all crossings are independent, as stated in the post. However, individual probability can be used to calculate the chance of an event happening over an extended number of happenings. They are just that, measurement of chance.

Another example: if I think of a number between 1 and 10 and have someone guess the number I'm thinking of, they have a 10% chance of guessing the correct number. If we do it again, they still have a 10% chance of guessing on that chance, so on and so forth out to 5 chances (each with a 10% chance). However, if we look at the group of 5, each with it's own chance of 10%, they have a probability of not guessing the correct number at least once of 59.05% (0.90 ^ 5). If we extend it to 10 times, they probability that they won't guess the correct number is 34.87%. The probability that they will not guess the correct number decreases with each chance, and approaches 0%, though it never reaches 0%.

The numbers are just that, a measure of mathematical probability.


That isn't quite right, and I think it is an issue with the way you said it, and not necessarily your understanding.

The increased probability of guessing the number in a certain number of guesses increases, the probability for a specific guess being correct does not increase.

In other words, the probability that a guess is correct in one guess is 10%.

If two guesses are made, assuming a fixed probability (as in this case) the probability for the first and second guess remains at 10%, but the probability that at least one of guess 1 or guess 2 are correct does increase.

So, even if I guess 999 times and get it wrong each time (or right each time, or any combination), the probability of guess 1,000 being correct is still 10%, even though before I start guessing, the chances that I will guess right at least once in 1,000 guesses is nearly 100%.

In the case of the accident reported at the start of this thread, there is bound to be flexibility in the variables based on car speed, bicycle speed, attentiveness of the rider and/or driver, type of vehicle involved etc.

Also in the case of the accident reported, I would hope that the first time a collision happens it modifies the parameters significantly by causing the cyclist to stop, or slow significantly, at stop signs... rather than terminating the series.

That isn't quite right, and I think it is an issue with the way you said it, and not necessarily your understanding.

The increased probability of guessing the number in a certain number of guesses increases, the probability for a specific guess being correct does not increase.

In other words, the probability that a guess is correct in one guess is 10%.

If two guesses are made, assuming a fixed probability (as in this case) the probability for the first and second guess remains at 10%, but the probability that at least one of guess 1 or guess 2 are correct does increase.

So, even if I guess 999 times and get it wrong each time (or right each time, or any combination), the probability of guess 1,000 being correct is still 10%, even though before I start guessing, the chances that I will guess right at least once in 1,000 guesses is nearly 100%.

Right, and that's basically what I said:


Another example: if I think of a number between 1 and 10 and have someone guess the number I'm thinking of, they have a 10% chance of guessing the correct number. If we do it again, they still have a 10% chance of guessing on that chance, so on and so forth out to 5 chances (each with a 10% chance). However, if we look at the group of 5, each with it's own chance of 10%, they have a probability of not guessing the correct number at least once of 59.05% (0.90 ^ 5). If we extend it to 10 times, they probability that they won't guess the correct number is 34.87%. The probability that they will not guess the correct number decreases with each chance, and approaches 0%, though it never reaches 0%.

Bold emphasis added. The 59.05% and 34.87% figures are the group of guesses figured as a whole, not each guess individually.

And the chance of you making it through 999 guesses without being correct is: 1.94 × 10^(-46)%, or 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000194%. Like we both said, the limits on both ends of the equation approach 100% and 0%, but never quite get there.


In the case of the accident reported at the start of this thread, there is bound to be flexibility in the variables based on car speed, bicycle speed, attentiveness of the rider and/or driver, type of vehicle involved etc.

Also in the case of the accident reported, I would hope that the first time a collision happens it modifies the parameters significantly by causing the cyclist to stop, or slow significantly, at stop signs... rather than terminating the series.

As for the parameters of the rider being able to be modified easily, I also noted that that probability calculation assumed that the rider was riding with no regard for safety and was proceeding through the stop sign indiscriminately. It was only used to show that something with a relatively low chance of happening can sometimes catch up with you in the long run. Anyone that advocates running through stop signs because of the low chance of incident is only asking for something to happen SOME DAY. It may not be today, or tomorrow, but at some point, it could catch up with you.

I don't see what the point is of all the calculations since it does not take into account the level of awareness of the cyclist. You can play the lottery your whole life and never win. So the real probability of getting hit is somewhere significantly lower than that of getting hit while riding blindfolded through intersections and (probably) playing Powerball your whole life and never winning.

So absent any real information about how often stop-sign-runners getting hit, your point is not relevant to the discussion.


Anyone that advocates running through stop signs because of the low chance of incident is only asking for something to happen SOME DAY. It may not be today, or tomorrow, but at some point, it could catch up with you.

Ten years? 100 years? A thousand years? Got a ball-park estimate?

More details here:
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2009/aug/02/safety-harbor-man-hospitalized-after-bicycle-crash/news-breaking/

The article indicates that motorist did not have a stop sign but the cyclist did and that he rode through without stopping.

If this is indeed the case, then the cyclist is 100% at fault. He should've made sure the intersection was clear before crossing. Nonetheless he has my sympathies.Even if the motorist had been driving at double the speed limit, with insufficient sight lines for the cyclist to see someone speeding through the intersection?

Even if the motorist had been driving at double the speed limit, with insufficient sight lines for the cyclist to see someone speeding through the intersection?

Precisely. Even if the cyclist had stopped, this scenario is equally and easily possible.

-Kurt

Even if the motorist had been driving at double the speed limit, with insufficient sight lines for the cyclist to see someone speeding through the intersection?But he wasn't speeding...


Precisely. Even if the cyclist had stopped, this scenario is equally and easily possible.
...and he didn't stop.

Why all the speculation and "yeah, but what ifs"? He ran the stop sign. He got hit. He's at fault and paying dearly through his injuries. I don't think the cyclist knowingly put himself in a situation where he knew he was going to get hit, but did put himself in a position that increased that possibility. Maybe he thought it was safe to proceed without stopping...turns out he was wrong. Call it poor judgment, bad luck...it doesn't matter. The fact is had he stopped he would have stood far less a chance of getting hit.

Ten years? 100 years? A thousand years? Got a ball-park estimate?

When it only takes once to possibly ruin the rest of your life, does it matter if it takes a day, a month, a year, 5 years, 10 years?

And the chances are far greater than winning Powerball. The odds of a Powerball jackpot are: 1 in 195,249,054. If we bring the "point of no return" of the car down to 1 second, to reach those same odds of getting hit, we need to get down to one car every 3254150.9 minutes (or 54235.84833333333 hours, or 2259.827013888889 days, or 6.191306887366819 years). That would give us a equal odds of hitting the Powerball jackpot and getting hit by a car, for one iteration.

Even if we cut it down to 5 cars an hour, with a 1 second "point of no return", we have the following figures of PROBABILITY (at no point have I said this is a guarantee):

(you may have to scroll the box)


Single chance of not getting hit Number of times through Probability of not getting hit
99.86000% 1 99.86000%
99.86000% 5 99.30196%
99.86000% 10 98.60879%
99.86000% 20 97.23693%
99.86000% 50 93.23481%
99.86000% 100 86.92730%
99.86000% 250 70.45153%
99.86000% 500 49.63418%
99.86000% 1000 24.63552%
99.86000% 1500 12.22764%
99.86000% 2000 6.06909%
99.86000% 2500 3.01234%
99.86000% 3000 1.49515%
99.86000% 3500 0.74211%
99.86000% 4000 0.36834%
99.86000% 4500 0.18282%
99.86000% 5000 0.09074%


So, in that case it takes about 500 crossings to get us to a coin toss probability.

And the point is that running stop signs is a BAD IDEA in any case. These are just numbers to back up the fact that you may not get hit the first time, and you could the same low chance of getting hit each subsequent time, the chances COULD (not will) catch up with you.

When it only takes once to possibly ruin the rest of your life, does it matter if it takes a day, a month, a year, 5 years, 10 years?In that case, you better stay off the roads altogether.


And the chances are far greater than winning Powerball. The odds of a Powerball jackpot are: 1 in 195,249,054. If we bring the "point of no return" of the car down to 1 second, to reach those same odds of getting hit, we need to get down to one car every 3254150.9 minutes (or 54235.84833333333 hours, or 2259.827013888889 days, or 6.191306887366819 years). That would give us a equal odds of hitting the Powerball jackpot and getting hit by a car, for one iteration.

Even if we cut it down to 5 cars an hour, with a 1 second "point of no return", we have the following figures of PROBABILITY (at no point have I said this is a guarantee):

(you may have to scroll the box)


Single chance of not getting hit Number of times through Probability of not getting hit
99.86000% 1 99.86000%
99.86000% 5 99.30196%
99.86000% 10 98.60879%
99.86000% 20 97.23693%
99.86000% 50 93.23481%
99.86000% 100 86.92730%
99.86000% 250 70.45153%
99.86000% 500 49.63418%
99.86000% 1000 24.63552%
99.86000% 1500 12.22764%
99.86000% 2000 6.06909%
99.86000% 2500 3.01234%
99.86000% 3000 1.49515%
99.86000% 3500 0.74211%
99.86000% 4000 0.36834%
99.86000% 4500 0.18282%
99.86000% 5000 0.09074%


So, in that case it takes about 500 crossings to get us to a coin toss probability.

And the point is that running stop signs is a BAD IDEA in any case. These are just numbers to back up the fact that you may not get hit the first time, and you could the same low chance of getting hit each subsequent time, the chances COULD (not will) catch up with you.

This is all very fascinating, but where in your calculations do you factor in an attentive rider looking out for oncoming cars, going ahead when it's safe to do so, and stopping when it's not?

In that case, you better stay off the roads altogether.

I do my best to follow the laws of the road, and conduct myself in a manner to minimize the chance of accidents, thank you. I ride on busy streets daily, and have yet to have anything even approaching a dangerous situation, other than the occasional driver honking at me when they pass.

My numbers were in response to people who are expressing a "the odds are slim, I'll chance it" attitude.

And it's odd that on a forum dedicated to Safety, this would even be a discussion. If we want bikes to be taken seriously on the road, we need to follow the same rules that the cars are supposed to follow. The advocating of a rolling stop through a stop sign is counterproductive. All that reinforces is the stereotype of "Cyclists don't care, they roll through stop signs and run red lights all the time. They don't belong on the road."

If we want bikes to be taken seriously on the road, we need to follow the same rules that the cars are supposed to follow. The advocating of a rolling stop through a stop sign is counterproductive. All that reinforces is the stereotype of "Cyclists don't care, they roll through stop signs and run red lights all the time. They don't belong on the road."

Motorists run stop signs and red lights too, and are each wielding a 2-ton weapon which can easily kill. Bikes OTOH are 20-50 pounds, and don't go very fast. I've yet to hear of a single motorist killed from colliding with a cyclist. Going by your logic, cars are too dangerous, don't follow rules, and don't belong on the road.

Fine, then it's a free for all.

I advocate being above the cars vs. bikes BS and setting a better example. Cars are the norm. Nearly everyone drives a car exclusively. So, non-cyclists are going to find things to nit pick about. They are going to latch onto these things and it is going to make them mad. Right or wrong, it does, and it causes problems for cyclists. Please note that I said "supposed to follow" in the post you quoted.

Seriously, is it so hard to unclip and stop at a stop sign? Show the cars that you're better than them, and observe safety procedures. That will get us much farther in the road to acceptance, and thus more likely to have funding for things like bike lanes approved, than seeing it as an "all out war between cars and bikes" which it seems to be perceived on this forum. There is just as much anti car and "people who are drive cars are brain dead idiots" sentiment on this forum, as anti cyclist sentiment on the streets, and there's far fewer people on this forum, so that's saying something.

I used to feel the same way as you before, but after joining this forum I guess you could say I've become cynical.

I don't care how motorists perceive me. They can honk and shout at me all I want, and I don't care as long as I can get home safely. So you're proposing that we all need to follow the rules in order to win motorists' acceptance.

That may work for you, but I like cycling, and I don't need anyone's acceptance. There will always be motorists who hate cyclists no matter what they do, and will always find excuses as to why we shouldn't be on the road.

If your argument is that following the rules will keep you safe, I have to also disagree. The traffic rules are designed around motor vehicles, and what's safe for cars isn't necessarily safe for cyclists.

If you get rear-ended while in a car, you can probably still walk away. But suppose you on a bike, you'll probably be seriously injured. We all run that risk when we stop at a stop light or stop sign. And if most cyclists in the area do not follow these rules, motorist will come to expect this behavior from, and might hit you if you suddenly stopped.

In summary, - I don't ride to win the acceptance of motorists and I keep myself safe based on careful assessment of the situation and not on a set of fixed rules. If the way I ride means breaking a few traffic rules, and causing a motorists a few seconds of delay, I'm fine with that.

p.s. I don't blow through stop signs. I slow to a pedestrian pace and visually check for traffic. If there are any vehicles in the intersection, I stop and yield to whoever was there first.

I treat stop lights as stop signs. I put both feet on the floor and come to a complete stop. Only after I've ensured that the intersection is completely clear do I proceed. If there are any cars in front of me, I wait behind the car until the light turns green.

So far this has worked for me.

If this forum makes one cynical to the point of viewing it at a war, I want no part of it. I'm out.

If this forum makes one cynical to the point of viewing it at a war, I want no part of it. I'm out.

That's up to you of course. This forum won't make you do anything.

Blowing through a stop sign with no helmet?

I hope the guy recovers, but seriously, is this not Darwinian law in action?

Even if the motorist had been driving at double the speed limit, with insufficient sight lines for the cyclist to see someone speeding through the intersection?

Yes, it would still be the cyclist's fault. Since he did not have the right of way at the intersection, it is his responsibility to determine when it is safe to cross. Anything in the environment that could that could impede his sight lines should be taken into consideration in the assessment.

Yes, it would still be the cyclist's fault. Since he did not have the right of way at the intersection, it is his responsibility to determine when it is safe to cross. Anything in the environment that could that could impede his sight lines should be taken into consideration in the assessment.

By this logic, you'd be waiting at the stop sign forever, lest some car tear around the blind corner at warp speed, ready to flatten you.

By this logic, you'd be waiting at the stop sign forever, lest some car tear around the blind corner at warp speed, ready to flatten you.

Not really. I have good hearing, and can usually detect cars from a distance, especially if they are speeding. Plus this would be a great time for me to work on my sprints :)

By this logic, you'd be waiting at the stop sign forever, lest some car tear around the blind corner at warp speed, ready to flatten you.If the sight lines were so poor as to be a hazard would there not be multiple car-on-car accidents at the same intersection? And wouldn't such a history of accidents have induced the city/town to take action to improve the site lines, lest these accidents continue?

Sight lines were fine...cyclist either didn't look at all, gave a passing glance or simply misjudged his ability to clear the intersection ahead of the oncoming vehicle.

You know, sometimes it is the cyclist's fault.

For the record: Google Street View (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=Third+Street+North,+safety+harbor,+fl&ie=UTF8&split=0&gl=us&ei=rtZ5SqO0M4GEMqb7yKMO&ll=27.992355,-82.697675&spn=0.008735,0.013797&z=16&layer=c&cbll=27.992359,-82.697789&panoid=uGLNsKchxR7qkWhwsMoQHA&cbp=12,272,,0,8.92)

Sight lines don't look so bad to me. Anyone stopped at that stop sign would easily see a car approaching.