Advocacy & Safety - Fatal "accident" in Amarillo, Tx

http://amarillo.com/news/local-news/2012-01-06/cycle-fatalities-uncommon-officials-say

very sad

...westbound 2008 Toyota Tundra driven by Ernest Gene Latta, 78, of Amarillo struck them from behind, the DPS said.

I understand why the elderly don't want to give up their independence. Viable alternatives to a car lifestyle are sorely lacking, especially for the elderly.

I have no idea if it applies to this accident, but it's obvious that a lot of older drivers are a serious hazard to themselves and others.

Paying attention is optional among motorists is this wacky bizarre world of the "civilized" US public.

Who's on Dancing With The Stars this week?

That is one bad looking road surface.

What makes it so bad is the fact it is out in the middle of no where. ANYONE should have been able to see even a quarter laying on the road, let alone two cyclist.

That old fart needs to spend the rest of his golden years in jail!!!!

We don't very often see a declaration like this:


Bicyclists and motorcyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as motor vehicle drivers in the eyes of the law, Department of Public Safety Trooper Gabriel Medrano said

Paying attention is optional among motorists is this wacky bizarre world of the "civilized" US public.

Who's on Dancing With The Stars this week?

you gotta be kidding me! We are talking about a person losing their life here and you are being flippant about it -- unbelieveable insensitivty -- I'll stop right there because you know what kind of person you come across as.

That Department of Public Safety Trooper makes an asinine statement. He is basically saying that riders need to ride as far right as possible. He is putting the onus on cyclists. Clearly, here the driver was entirely at fault, I hope he looses his license. Sun impaired? Please! Park the gas guzzler and deal with the impairment. Take a frickin' second to use your visor, sunglasses, bill of your baseball cap.

I understand why the elderly don't want to give up their independence. Viable alternatives to a car lifestyle are sorely lacking, especially for the elderly.

I have no idea if it applies to this accident, but it's obvious that a lot of older drivers are a serious hazard to themselves and others.

One of my family members has definitely become a hazard on the road. But the alternatives are only sorely lacking if the elderly individual lives outside the coverage area of a local public transportation infrastructure.

They got the IPhone despite my objections. Then just the other day they mentioned that they were thinking of getting 'texting' added to the phone, just because a sibling has it. I can see where this is headed.

What makes it so bad is the fact it is out in the middle of no where. ANYONE should have been able to see even a quarter laying on the road, let alone two cyclist.

That old fart needs to spend the rest of his golden years in jail!!!!

+1

That Department of Public Safety Trooper makes an asinine statement. He is basically saying that riders need to ride as far right as possible. He is putting the onus on cyclists. Clearly, here the driver was entirely at fault, I hope he looses his license. Sun impaired? Please! Park the gas guzzler and deal with the impairment. Take a frickin' second to use your visor, sunglasses, bill of your baseball cap.

The sun is the reason why, I get a highly rated bike helmet, that has a 'visor' on it, in conjunction with my Native cycling sunglasses.

A brief exerpt from a comment I made to the newpaper on the sun goes like this: "After I read this article, I made it a point to take a look at the location of the sun above the horizon at 4:10PM the next day. My personal opinion is that unless the windshield of the pick-up was extremely dirty, there is no way the sun could have been a factor in this "accident" with sunset being at approximately 5:48 that day. It looks more like simple inattention to the road which leads me to believe . . . " where I voiced my opinion about the incident under a similar username as I have here. I have ridden that same stretch of road a few times when I have to leave a vehicle in Amarillo for a few hours for service and take advantage of the time to go for a bike ride. I may think twice about that practice now.

A tragic incident, one can only hope that the elderly motorist willingly gives up driving, and not chalk this incident up as some foolish cyclists being in the road.

we are all one ride away from this- a teenager texting, and old man who cant see, a drunk driver ... I will continue to ride and take my chances but these things are never going to stop.

A brief exerpt from a comment I made to the newpaper on the sun goes like this: "After I read this article, I made it a point to take a look at the location of the sun above the horizon at 4:10PM the next day. My personal opinion is that unless the windshield of the pick-up was extremely dirty, there is no way the sun could have been a factor in this "accident" with sunset being at approximately 5:48 that day. It looks more like simple inattention to the road which leads me to believe . . . " where I voiced my opinion about the incident under a similar username as I have here. I have ridden that same stretch of road a few times when I have to leave a vehicle in Amarillo for a few hours for service and take advantage of the time to go for a bike ride. I may think twice about that practice now.

I agree, the sun should have been high enough to not cause significant impairment. Assuming the driver is sincere, he was using that statement as an self-explanation of why he didn't see, but obviously ignoring a host of other reasons.

-G

...I will continue to ride and take my chances.....

Rather leaving it up totally to chance, I will do all I can to increase my odds of not being hit by a motor vehicle, even if a number of the motoring population might consider my actions as "over the top".

As in the case of a number of cyclists and among my personal thoughts while cycling, "I make a bad decision, I pay, if a motorist makes a bad decision, I pay."

we are all one ride away from this- a teenager texting, and old man who cant see, a drunk driver ... I will continue to ride and take my chances but these things are never going to stop.

+1

Here is a Vid of the seen.

Check out the one comment.

http://www.newschannel10.com/story/16466214/biking-community-pushes-for-safer-roads

Yet another avoidable tragedy, yes by BOTH parties. 50/50. Yet another VC FAILURE.
I am assuming that they were riding on the inside of the resurfaced part, in the middle of the lane. Sure the road is rough on both sides of that, but I don't see why they couldn't ride 5" left of the "shoulder" and move right for 5 seconds while the trucks go by. That shoulder is 7 feet wide at least. Where the question mark is, it looks not that much more unrideable. Certainly better than crossing a rumble strip. Did the cyclists take into account the sun's glare either ?? Doesn't look like it.

RIP

....... BOTH parties. 50/50.


Yet your rant goes on to chastise only the cyclists.:rolleyes:

High speed roads, taking the lane?... yet another bad combination. (I really don't know where in the lane the cyclists were... )

Do you suppose the cyclists were obeying the rules of the road?

How about the motorist?

I don't have a satellite view of the frontage road, but many frontage road/freeway exit combinations in Texas are downright scary. You exit the highway and are popped immediately into two-way traffic. Factoring out the age of the driver (we presume the 78-yr-old is incapable automatically), the transitions from freeway to frontage roads in Texas can frequently be tough to negotiate. One split second of distraction by an oncoming car, or anything else, and tragedy results. Again, to repeat, I don't have a view of this location, but I wouldn't be very thrilled about riding on a Texas frontage road, at least not near any on/off ramps.

Sad day for all....

edit: Appears that they were not near an off ramp, and that road is crappy. I don't think I would want to share that road with high speed traffic (very little low speed traffic out in the panhandle outside of town...)

The picture in the news article at the scene of the accident is looking east toward Amarillo. That section of roadway is past the point where there are shoulders. It is a two-way access road and yes, there are some very rough stretches of pavement where one is tempted and probably uses the middle section of the lane to stay off the part on either side of the center because of recent chip-seal that will jar your bones on a road bike. I've had water bottles bounce out of their cages on some of these parts of this exact road. Moving 5" off the "shoulder" (there is no shoulder) is not an option here unless you are willing to take a skinny tire road bike into the dirt, rocks, glass, goatheads and who knows what else.

As for the sun's glare; this happened an hour and a half before sundown and should not even be considered a legitimate factor.

That Department of Public Safety Trooper makes an asinine statement. He is basically saying that riders need to ride as far right as possible. He is putting the onus on cyclists. Clearly, here the driver was entirely at fault, I hope he looses his license. Sun impaired? Please! Park the gas guzzler and deal with the impairment. Take a frickin' second to use your visor, sunglasses, bill of your baseball cap.

it would have been a cowboy hat. they ARE in Texas...

One of my family members has definitely become a hazard on the road. But the alternatives are only sorely lacking if the elderly individual lives outside the coverage area of a local public transportation infrastructure.

They got the IPhone despite my objections. Then just the other day they mentioned that they were thinking of getting 'texting' added to the phone, just because a sibling has it. I can see where this is headed.

Chris, in every state I've ever lived in, there is a procedure for family members to request that the DMV retest an impaired relative's driving ability. If you're aware of the problem and choose not to act, then the blame for anyone he hurts is partly yours.

Does Public Safety Trooper Medano not know the laws of his own state? "Sec. 551.103. Operation on Roadway.

(a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a person operating a bicycle on a roadway who is moving slower than the other traffic on the roadway shall ride as near as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway, unless:

(1) the person is passing another vehicle moving in the same direction; [or]


(2) the person is preparing to turn left at an intersection or onto a private road or driveway; [or]

(3) a condition on or of the roadway, including a fixed or moving object, parked or moving vehicle, pedestrian, animal, or surface hazard prevents the person from safely riding next to the right curb or edge of the roadway; or


(4) the person is operating a bicycle in an outside lane that is:
(A) less than 14 feet in width and does not have a designated bicycle lane adjacent to that lane; or
(B) too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel side by side.

Whereas he said, "Medrano advised bicyclists choose roadways with light traffic, wear helmets and reflective, brightly-colored clothing, avoid riding at night or early in the morning and “ride as close to the right-hand curb as possible to stay away from traffic.”

What he's saying, in effect, is that cyclists shouldn't ride anywhere where they might be the subject of poor, careless or dangerous driving. He also seems to be defining them as not "traffic". In particular, his reference to lights and riding at night or early in the morning was irrelevant, since the collision took place in daylight (4.10pm against sunset at 5.48pm and the victims were wearing helmets.

Any Texas cyclists willing to re-educate him?

Chris, in every state I've ever lived in, there is a procedure for family members to request that the DMV retest an impaired relative's driving ability. If you're aware of the problem and choose not to act, then the blame for anyone he hurts is partly yours.

'He', is an assumption. The family member is female. But that aspect aside, thanks for the reminder about indirect irresponsibility.

I think you need to give the DPS officer some slack here. He did not say it is law but was simply giving sound advice which most cyclists on this road adhere to, but it never hurts to have a reminder.

"Medrano advised bicyclists choose roadways with light traffic, wear helmets and reflective, brightly-colored clothing, avoid riding at night or early in the morning and “ride as close to the right-hand curb as possible to stay away from traffic.”

I think you need to give the DPS officer some slack here. He did not say it is law but was simply giving sound advice which most cyclists on this road adhere to, but it never hurts to have a reminder.

"Medrano advised bicyclists choose roadways with light traffic, wear helmets and reflective, brightly-colored clothing, avoid riding at night or early in the morning and “ride as close to the right-hand curb as possible to stay away from traffic.”

Slack? For a driver or officer of the law? On A&S?

Ummm Upon further review .... I think I overstated the width of the road. The new strip is about 5 ft ??
And the shoulder area seems to start about the right side of the question mark, which is likely 12' from the center.
It looks like that is where the big truck tracks are. It's not right that there is no white line to guide traffic, day or night.
That leaves just 3 feet to the outside edge. So the driver should get the majority of the blame. If someone is riding anywhere in the new pavement, I hope they are using a mirror.

Ummm Upon further review .... I think I overstated the width of the road. The new strip is about 5 ft ??
And the shoulder area seems to start about the right side of the question mark, which is likely 12' from the center.
It looks like that is where the big truck tracks are. It's not right that there is no white line to guide traffic, day or night.
That leaves just 3 feet to the outside edge. So the driver should get the majority of the blame. If someone is riding anywhere in the new pavement, I hope they are using a mirror.

no. That is a two lane access/frontage road with two way traffic. The point of the accident has no shoulder. The rough strips that appear to be "truck tracks" are areas where TxDOT has put down chip-seal to extend the life of the roughest parts of the roadway without repaving the entire surface. Trust me on this; I have ridden that road three times in the past 6 months. The shoulder ends about a half mile east of the accident location. There is little to no east bound traffic so even if there might have been at 4:10 that day it would have only been maybe a 30 second wait until the driver of the vehicle could go around the cyclists in the left lane. But until Mr. Isom's wife is able to share her side of the story, the only eye witness we have is the driver of the pick-up.

Ummm Upon further review .... I think I overstated the width of the road. The new strip is about 5 ft ??
And the shoulder area seems to start about the right side of the question mark, which is likely 12' from the center.
It looks like that is where the big truck tracks are. It's not right that there is no white line to guide traffic, day or night.
That leaves just 3 feet to the outside edge. So the driver should get the majority of the blame. If someone is riding anywhere in the new pavement, I hope they are using a mirror.
Hmm, here's a quick review on road use for you. When a vehicle is overtaking another road user, the right-of-way belongs to the vehicle being overtaken. If the overtaking vehicle smashes into the vehicle, or cyclists, that are being overtaken then ALL of the blame goes to the driver of the overtaking vehicle.

Might, or size, does not make right (of way). It's really not that complicated.

Like other posters I am ignorant of the particulars surrounding this death.

As drivers we can be reminded that even momentary lapses can be fatal.

As cyclists we can be reminded that smooth pavement can lead us to ride in a position we would otherwise have wisely avoided.

Hmm, here's a quick review on road use for you. When a vehicle is overtaking another road user, the right-of-way belongs to the vehicle being overtaken. If the overtaking vehicle smashes into the vehicle, or cyclists, that are being overtaken then ALL of the blame goes to the driver of the overtaking vehicle.

Might, or size, does not make right (of way). It's really not that complicated.

Quite right, that is the law of man for the use of the road. Now how about the other law... the one for physics... the one that states a heavy fast object colliding with a small slow object results in massive amounts of energy being transferred to the small slow object.

Do the laws of man trump the laws of physics?

Quite right, that is the law of man for the use of the road. Now how about the other law... the one for physics... the one that states a heavy fast object colliding with a small slow object results in massive amounts of energy being transferred to the small slow object.

Do the laws of man trump the laws of physics?

What's your point?

I think the point is rather a question - should the little object demand right of way over the larger?

This is a horrid tragedy. EVERYONE involved has had their life ruined, even ended.

Now, I am spoiled with a plethora of good places to ride, most with very little auto traffic. I am blessed that I don't have to use any roads like this in pursuit of either my commute or my hobby. I would sure hate to have to ride that road.

And as to the question of little objects and big objects and rights of way, when I'm riding I have the right of way over the farm equipment that moves on the rural roads. And I get off my bike and climb over the ditch with it to the fence line to let a harvester or combine pass. Even though I have the right of way.

I think you need to give the DPS officer some slack here. He did not say it is law but was simply giving sound advice which most cyclists on this road adhere to, but it never hurts to have a reminder.

"Medrano advised bicyclists choose roadways with light traffic, wear helmets and reflective, brightly-colored clothing, avoid riding at night or early in the morning and “ride as close to the right-hand curb as possible to stay away from traffic.”

The problem here is that most other road users, i.e. drivers, will assume that he was stating what cyclists should do. The advice that they should ride as close to the rh curb as possible is simply wrong, in law. Since the driver hit them from behind, he was, unless the circumstances were exceptional, entirely to blame

If the traffic was heavy (unclear), the the driver should have seen vehicles in front moving out to avoid the riders, and, if the traffic was not heavy, the rider should have been highly visible.

Bearing in mind that that Medano was speaking as a Public Safety Trooper, he should have expressed himself in a way which was comensurate with state law.

Hmm, here's a quick review on road use for you. When a vehicle is overtaking another road user, the right-of-way belongs to the vehicle being overtaken. If the overtaking vehicle smashes into the vehicle, or cyclists, that are being overtaken then ALL of the blame goes to the driver of the overtaking vehicle.

Might, or size, does not make right (of way). It's really not that complicated.


Quite right, that is the law of man for the use of the road. Now how about the other law... the one for physics... the one that states a heavy fast object colliding with a small slow object results in massive amounts of energy being transferred to the small slow object.

Do the laws of man trump the laws of physics?
Genec, These aren't unguided missiles we're talking about, they're vehicles that only go where they are steered by a human being at the speed he/she decides to travel at (for now). If might makes right, which is the older version of your question, then welcome to the dark ages. Praise the lord and pass the ammunition brothers and sisters. Your admonition about the relative momentum transfers is somewhat like saying a **** victim is responsible for her fate. After all, she was attractive and weaker than her assailant, so she should have just stayed off the road.

B. C.,

I understand what you are saying, but you seem willing to stand on principle rather than good sense. The point of the question re physics is do we rely upon those laws of man? Or do we insist upon our legislatively-awarded rights, consequences be hanged? And no, genec is not stating that the victim of sexual assault is at fault because she was attractive and weaker. But just like an injured cyclist or a mugging victim, sometimes we can lower the chances of an incident by where and when we go someplace, or how we conduct ourselves when we are there.

The tragedy here apparently happened on a road popular for cyclists. No matter the cause or the fault, this was tragic for everyone involved. Everyone.

B. C.,

I understand what you are saying, but you seem willing to stand on principle rather than good sense. The point of the question re physics is do we rely upon those laws of man? Or do we insist upon our legislatively-awarded rights, consequences be hanged? And no, genec is not stating that the victim of sexual assault is at fault because she was attractive and weaker. But just like an injured cyclist or a mugging victim, sometimes we can lower the chances of an incident by where and when we go someplace, or how we conduct ourselves when we are there.

The tragedy here apparently happened on a road popular for cyclists. No matter the cause or the fault, this was tragic for everyone involved. Everyone.
Like most folks, I will do what I have to do to avoid being turned into road pizza. However, I think that we need to at least acknowledge that if we accept the premise that might makes right, then we no longer have any basis for a civil society. When I'm driving 105,500 pounds down the roadway, everyone is a vulnerable road user to me. I take that to mean that I have an increased responsibility to avoid putting other people in danger. Now, the vehicle code allows me to kill two people with my big rig before I face a possible license suspension (for the third), but what kind of barbarian uses the fact that we do not have adequate punishments for killing with motor vehicles as an excuse to drive in a depraved way? I really think we need to assign the blame where it belongs, and that is not with the most vulnerable road user. Europe has done this for years, what is wrong with us?