Getting all the facts straight may or may not be important based on what your objective is.

If you are trying to find out exactly what happened there, then, yes, of course, getting all the facts straight is critical.

But in a discussion about such an incident in a forum like this, the more important objective is what we can learn to be better/safer cyclists. To meet that objective, making various assumptions, whether they actually reflect what really happened that early morning, is not important.
Serge, I agree that making assumptions can be valuable in discussions for teaching purposes. But in determining responsibility for this specific accident, it's essential to be in posession of all the facts before making a final determination of fault. Hypothetical arguments are exactly that--hypothetical, therefore not proven as fact.

I am especially interested in what the facts are in this particular case because the "facts" seem to have changed, and changed again during the course of the investigation. Could someone be hiding something?
Are the "facts" that are now presented supported by physical evidence, eyewitnesses (other than those involved in the accident) or expert witnesses?

Cops don't know their asses from a hole in the ground. I seriously don't expect them to know anything about the law.
In the way they respond to most things, I'd say they're more like paramedics. They get their quickly but they're not there to prevent the tragedy, only there to clean up afterwards 90% of the time.

That's a pretty broad generalization don't you think ? Of course, my dad is a cop so I am no doubt somewhat biased but I know many of his colleagues and a few of them are jerks and do not make as much effort to learn about stuff as the others.

Having said that, cyclists who don't wear proper lighting and who don't outfit their bikes with proper lighting are just asking for trouble. The number of times I see idiot cyclists on a main thoroughfare on dark streets (i.e. dusk, dawn, night, poor weather) wtihout any lights and wearing dark clothing is just amazing. What the hell are they thinking ? I cringe when I see them because I know that at some point they're going to become a fatality and the poor bloke who clocks them off their bike due to not being able to see them is going to have to live with that all their lives !

It's got nothing to do with the police - just lack of common sense on the part of some cyclists.

Are the "facts" that are now presented supported by physical evidence, eyewitnesses (other than those involved in the accident) or expert witnesses?

Five witnesses means five different versions of what happened. Have you heard the old adage about knowing the time if you have one watch, but not knowing what it really is if you have two watches? The facts are likely to "change" based on whose version of the facts you're hearing. If the facts weren't changing that would be surprising.

Again, the facts matter to the immediate parties involved. To the rest of us - what difference does it make? What is our ultimate purpose of even discussing events like this if it is not to learn how to make cycling safer? And for that, we don't not need to know the actual facts.

Regardless of whether he had a rear light, we know we should ride with lights.
Regardless of whether he was in the lane, we know we should fight for our right to be in the lane (with a rear light/reflector at night, of course).
etc.

Regardless of whether he had a rear light, we know we should ride with lights.
Regardless of whether he was in the lane, we know we should fight for our right to be in the lane (with a rear light/reflector at night, of course).
etc.
Agreed.

Five witnesses means five different versions of what happened. Have you heard the old adage about knowing the time if you have one watch, but not knowing what it really is if you have two watches? The facts are likely to "change" based on whose version of the facts you're hearing. If the facts weren't changing that would be surprising.
Again, you're right. But my concern is what version of the "facts" the authorities will finally accept. Where did they get their information?

If their information about the crash has changed as much as the news reports, some of their data is clearly wrong. Is their data about the absence of a visible rear light on one of the cyclists' vehicles also wrong?

The law is flawed. What is "practicable?" 1 ft., 3 ft., 6 ft. what? Second question, why is the bicycle restricted to "that portion of the roadway that is as far to the right as practicable," when the automobile is allowed to take the whole lane?

Another instance of obey the law and die. Notice the cyclist who did not obey the law and survived. The one who obey the dangerous "ride right" rule, died.

The law is flawed. What is "practicable?" 1 ft., 3 ft., 6 ft. what? Second question, why is the bicycle restricted to "that portion of the roadway that is as far to the right as practicable," when the automobile is allowed to take the whole lane?

Another instance of obey the law and die. Notice the cyclist who did not obey the law and survived. The one who obey the dangerous "ride right" rule, died.
I don't think that conclusion is supported by the facts in this particular case.

The law is flawed. What is "practicable?" 1 ft., 3 ft., 6 ft. what? Second question, why is the bicycle restricted to "that portion of the roadway that is as far to the right as practicable," when the automobile is allowed to take the whole lane?


Obviously a bicycle does not have anywhere nearly the capabilities of a motorized vehicle on a typical road, which explains the rule pretty easily. "Practicable" means whatever you think you can make a case for in traffic court.

Another point I've not seen mentioned is fog. There was fog when this occurred. The motorist could have been within the speed limit, but still be driving too fast for conditions. Despite my attempts (since I live nearby I have followed this accident closely) I've been unable to find out what the riders had for rear illumination, other than that Serrano had a rear reflector, and Mock did not. No mention of any other lighting. To me, this is much more significant than whether they met the letter of the law regarding reflectors. If the sum total of illumination between the two cyclists was one reflector, I would not hold the motorist responsible. One reflector between two bikes on a high speed highway in the dark in fog would be, I think calling it unwise would be charitable. However, at the other extreme, if they were lit up like a Christmas tree, regardless of reflectors, I think that the motorist should be charged with vehicular manslaughter. If the truth lies somewhere in between, the charges should be somewhere in between.

Randya, riding two abreast is legal in GA.

Sadly, the presence of the required reflector did not save Serrano's life. One would think that the motorist would have been aware of Serrano and thus, when surprised by Mock's presence, would have veered away from the reflector that he could see.

Sadly, the presence of the required reflector did not save Serrano's life. One would think that the motorist would have been aware of Serrano and thus, when surprised by Mock's presence, would have veered away from the reflector that he could see.

The driver might not have seen the cyclist he hit, who was on the right. I think Sheldon Brown's website has an article of his on why reflectors are nowhere near as good as lights, and why reflectors can only be seen from certain angles.

Matthew Stovall, 38, of Lawrenceville, disagrees with Thaxton’s interpretation of Georgia law. As president of the Gwinnett Bicycle Users Group, Stovall and his wife frequently take between 10 and 50 mile bicycle trips around the county.

Stovall believes that since bicycles are categorized as vehicles, they should obey the rules of the road by riding along the right edge of the continuing lane of traffic, not the right edge of the turn lane.

“It would be safer to be at the right edge of the continuing lane to make it clear to drivers he was not going to turn,” Stovall said."

when it comes down to it the laws are not in bikes favor.....and also cars suck, but we already knew that

.....and also cars suck

Cars don't suck. The people driving them do.

The driver might not have seen the cyclist he hit, who was on the right. I think Sheldon Brown's website has an article of his on why reflectors are nowhere near as good as lights, and why reflectors can only be seen from certain angles.

I've been driving cars for a long time and I have never had a problem seeing reflectors next to the road facing toward me. This is a primary geometry for reflector road markers and reflective paint on signs. Barring dense fog, the reflector would have been visible.

Barring dense fog, the reflector would have been visible.

And allowing fog, the driver should have slowed sufficiently due to conditions to have been able to see.

If the cyclist who survived had a reflector, then the motorist is at fault for the death of the cyclist who did not have a reflector.

If the cyclist without a reflector had been a pedestrian instead, who would be at fault?

I wouldn't swerve right to avoid a cyclist's reflector in my lane; I'd stop or slow and pass on the left.
Unless I didn't see the reflector in time, in which case I'd be at fault for not driving at a safe speed.

Cars don't suck. The people driving them do.

No, my friend, cars DO SUCK.

I've been driving cars for a long time and I have never had a problem seeing reflectors next to the road facing toward me. This is a primary geometry for reflector road markers and reflective paint on signs. Barring dense fog, the reflector would have been visible.

I find roadside SAE reflectors to be much more visible under my car headlamps than are the rear red bike reflectors mandated by the CPSC, particularly when they are on an actual, moving bike. Maybe it's the small size of the CPSC reflectors, maybe its the way 2/3 of the rear reflector area is angled away from me, or maybe it's the ease with which the brackets get set or bent out of alignment. But I find that many of the CPSC rear reflectors in use out there are nearly invisible until I'm right on top of the cyclist. A blinky and/or an SAE automotive reflector are much, much better. I use both on my bikes. I wish the CPSC would mandate more effective devices.

I wish the CPSC would mandate more effective devices.
Well, you can always dream...I use SAE reflectors also. You can get 3" diameter flat SAE reflectors in red, amber, blue and sometimes other colors from your local auto supply or hardware store; they're very inexpensive, and very effective.

...One reflector between two bikes on a high speed highway in the dark in fog would be, I think calling it unwise would be charitable...

Two or three people on bicycles are killed every day in the US of A. Some of the folks killed riding on bikes were doing stuff that was VERY "unwise".

It is interesting that women between the age of 16 and 60 make up a large proportion of the cyclists in America, but a much smaller proportion of those who die riding bikes. Perhaps "wisdom" is not allocated equally among men and women.

No, my friend, cars DO SUCK.

And blow.

Mine's turbocharged. So it really sucks.

And blow.

Mine's turbocharged. So it really sucks.
How many pounds of CO2 does it emit per mile?

How many pounds of CO2 does it emit per mile?

Probably less than the pounds of CH4 the average rider emits per mile.

Diesels are known for their low CO2 emissions. Moreso if you run biodiesel.

No, my friend, cars DO SUCK.

Actually a suck is a misnomer, it's more of a pressure differential with higher pressure going to lower relative pressure.

Probably less than the pounds of CH4 the average rider emits per mile.
I seriously doubt it.


Diesels are known for their low CO2 emissions. Moreso if you run biodiesel.
Diesels emit other hamful pollutants, including hydrocarbons and particulates in a size range that humans are very senstive to.

Actually a suck is a misnomer, it's more of a pressure differential with higher pressure going to lower relative pressure.


I work in the Hi-Vac industry. We really suck. Our machines can get as close to absolute vacuum that is possible, a better vacuum than outer space.

Bicycle store owners and salespeople, for the most part, are seriously chickenshirt about properly vehement advice on lights. I am proud to have been reprimanded by the owner of a store that I used to work at for saying things like, "Here are real lights (Turbo Cat, Night Rider, etc.,) and here are bicycling flashlights." and "There are no such thing as expensive lights--imagine the cost for fixing the arm you'll break when you don't see that piece of 4x4 in the road." There are a few exceptions that I know of, but too darn many bike merchants are afraid of negative responses when telling customers things that they should do!

Surely the important point is that the car driver should have been able to stop within the distance seen by his lights, whether or not the bike is lit. Are pedestrians or animals crossing the road lit?

There is an element of contributory negligence but surely the criminal position remains that the car driver is careless/reckless?

Surely the important point is that the car driver should have been able to stop within the distance seen by his lights, whether or not the bike is lit. Are pedestrians or animals crossing the road lit?

There is an element of contributory negligence but surely the criminal position remains that the car driver is careless/reckless?

In the absense of more information, that's how I see it.

I seriously doubt it.

At least it's cheaper in terms of ¢/mi. (~3-5)

Diesels emit other hamful pollutants, including hydrocarbons and particulates in a size range that humans are very senstive to.

And biodiesel cuts in half or more the amount of hydrocarbons, particulate and CO2 that a direct-injection motor emits. If you live in CA, NO2 is the worst thing diesels emit. CO2 has no effect on air quality.

Look, I know what you're getting at; I'm evil 'cause I own a car (your attempt to bait me with the CO2 [global warming] didn't stick so you turned it to HC and PM [pollutants]). Well, I bought the most energy efficient car available and I'm not feeling guilty about that. Where I live, biking everywhere is not an option. Perhaps you're blessed to live in a city and climate and have a job where you can. I'm doing the best I can with what I've got.

I'm doing the best I can with what I've got.
You can work to change the system and not just accept it the way it is.

Despite your claim, CO2 emissions from motor vehicles are in fact pollutants.

Did I miss the part of the story where the cyclist was killed by the vehicle's emmissions?

Did I miss the part of the story where the cyclist was killed by the vehicle's emmissions?

Yeah. It was right after I cracked a little joke and got sent down guilt trip alley for owning a car.

I feel so bad now. I think I'll ride my bike, but then I think of how much energy and oil goes into the manufacturing of my bike, its components and tires and I think maybe I'll walk to work, but then I think of the corrupt shoe industry employing child labour. Then I think I'll quit my job altogether and just stay home. But I have an oil furnace and I should keep warm 'cause it's 18F out right now. So maybe I'll shut off the heat and just bundle up. But then my pipes would burst and I'd waste all that water. Ugh, there's just no way for me to NOT feed this system!

So I've decided to kill myself. Just as soon as I can find a way to keep the lead from the bullet and the emissions from my decaying body to not harm the environment.

You can work to change the system and not just accept it the way it is.

I'll get to working on making all the cars disappear right after I'm done working on a way to make flying monkeys shoot out of my ass.

Yeah. It was right after I cracked a little joke and got sent down guilt trip alley for owning a car.

I feel so bad now. I think I'll ride my bike, but then I think of how much energy and oil goes into the manufacturing of my bike, its components and tires and I think maybe I'll walk to work, but then I think of the corrupt shoe industry employing child labour. Then I think I'll quit my job altogether and just stay home. But I have an oil furnace and I should keep warm 'cause it's 18F out right now. So maybe I'll shut off the heat and just bundle up. But then my pipes would burst and I'd waste all that water. Ugh, there's just no way for me to NOT feed this system!

So I've decided to kill myself. Just as soon as I can find a way to keep the lead from the bullet and the emissions from my decaying body to not harm the environment.

I'll get to working on making all the cars disappear right after I'm done working on a way to make flying monkeys shoot out of my ass.
That's the attitude!!!

Here you go Randya28-815. Riding on roadway and bicycle path; bicycle path usage

A. A person riding a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except under any of the following situations:

1. If overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.

2. If preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

3. If reasonably necessary to avoid conditions, including fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals or surface hazards.

4. If the lane in which the person is operating the bicycle is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

B. Persons riding bicycles on a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.

C. A path or lane that is designated as a bicycle path or lane by state or local authorities is for the exclusive use of bicycles even though other uses are permitted pursuant to subsection D or are otherwise permitted by state or local authorities.

D. A person shall not operate, stop, park or leave standing a vehicle in a path or lane designated as a bicycle path or lane by a state or local authority except in the case of emergency or for crossing the path or lane to gain access to a public or private road or driveway.

E. Subsection D does not prohibit the use of the path or lane by the appropriate local authority.

That comes from www.azleg.state.az.us and is under title 28. It sounds like the person that got charged was out in the roadway somewhat invisible. That would be More than two abreast. Yes I understand that there were only two of them but you probably could fit more than that in the space.

I tried to look up the GA laws but they are too confusing and I don't want to waste my time on it. Besides there are several other things that he could have been charged with but since this is a guessing game amongst the crowd we'll leave it up to the judge to decide whether it sticks or not.

If there are only two riders, how can they be more than "two abreast"? There would have to be a legal definition of someone being out further into the lane being more than "two abreast".

If there are only two riders, how can they be more than "two abreast"? There would have to be a legal definition of someone being out further into the lane being more than "two abreast".

In Australia there are limits on how far apart two riders can ride. It's 1.5m (handlebar to handlebar).

So, it's ok to rear-end a car that is in front of you, and claim you 'did not see him'?

Visibility my ass, unless he was wearing all black with a black bike he was visible, and if the car driver did not have time to brake, then he was going WAY too fast.

19, 5AM...sounds like he was speeding, saw the bicycle, thought "man I am so fast, I don't need to slow down, I can swerve", swerved right into another bicycle. This is why swerving in a car is discouraged, braking will work 95% of the time and swerving often puts you in danger of hitting something else.

Probably less than the pounds of CH4 the average rider emits per mile.

Diesels are known for their low CO2 emissions. Moreso if you run biodiesel.
I strongly doubt it, unless you are completely filling and emptying your lungs 10+ times a second.

Okay... I have a dumb (read: "Obvious") question.

Why did the motorist swerve to the right? Swerving into the passing lane on his left would have avoided both cyclists, regardless of the amount of reflective clothing either was wearing... and makes more sense to me.

I strongly doubt it, unless you are completely filling and emptying your lungs 10+ times a second.

Or unless you're a cow.

Several posts have said "Why didn't the motorists see the cyclists"? The Arizona Highway Patrol has been trying to get Ford Motor to modify the Ford Crown Victoria that the AHP uses. Over the years, dozens of AHP Crown Vics have been rear-ended by motorists, and some have exploded into flames, with bad results for the officer involved.

So, motorists "rear end" police cars with a four foot wide bar of flashing strobe lights that can be seen for miles, and folks ask "why can't motorists see a bike?"

My Dad drove 18 wheelers, which can him a good view of what other motorists are doing while supposedly driving. He saw folks "driving" while doing the "usual": talking on the phone, putting a tape in the stereo, changing the radio channel, eating lunch, and drinking their coffee. He also saw "drivers" who were putting on make-up, putting on panty hose, spanking a child who was in the back seat, and enjoying the attentions of a Monica Lewinsky.

A driver who has two hands on the steering wheel, the stereo and phone turned off, and his eyes locked on the road ahead is the exception, not the rule.

Okay... I have a dumb (read: "Obvious") question.

Why did the motorist swerve to the right? Swerving into the passing lane on his left would have avoided both cyclists, regardless of the amount of reflective clothing either was wearing... and makes more sense to me.

Generally on a multi-lane road its a bad idea to swerve to the left, across the path of faster lanes and towards oncoming traffic, unless you have room enough to stay in your own lane while doing so.