Advocacy & Safety - Cyclist Charged with Death of Companion

It seems that two cyclists were riding in Atlanta at 5 AM. One was in the center of a thru lane of an intersection, the other on the right side of the lane. A motorist swerved to miss the one in the center of the lane striking and killing the one on the right. The uninjured cyclist was cited for riding too far to the left of the lane and for not having a red reflector on the bike (it would have been dark at 5 AM, of course).

http://www.ajc.com/search/content/auto/epaper/editions/today/gwinnett_14ad434896f3529b00be.html

um, lemon brain... he was charged with riding to far into the lane and not having a reflector.


what the crap is wrong with you?!

you want fire don't ya!

um, lemon brain... he was charged with riding to far into the lane and not having a reflector.


what the crap is wrong with you?!

you want fire don't ya!

The guy must be a reporter for the NY Times!

hmmmmmm interesting :eek:

Two things, one, how fast was this guy going in the car that he couldn't spot a figure on the road (reflector not needed) through his headlights, was he even paying attention, was he tired, dozing off, looking elsewhere, changing his radio?
Two, if struck from behind and assuming that the biker's virtually invisible (some are), why was the biker virtually invisible? I'm sorry but if my car were doing a mere 20mph and you're completely invisible, soaking up all available oncoming light until the last 15 ft, then I will run you over if you're in the middle of the road.

But anyway, the whole thing smells fishy, if they were both in the lane, and assuming the guy wasn't wearing black felt all over, it's the driver's fault.

"Honda Prelude driven by Luke Joseph Nicolosi, 19, of Alpharetta"
Anyone care to pull a tried and true stereotype?

were the streets lit?

It was two hours (5 am) before sunrise (7 am). It was dark. The cyclist riding in the lane was not invisible, but he was understandably difficult to see. When the motorist did finally see him, he understandably swerved to miss him, and, tragically, collided with the cyclist to the right. The police say the motorist was not speeding.

Whether the street was lit is irrelevant to the question of whether the motorist is responsible for having to swerve to avoid the cyclist who had no lights and no reflectors (the motorist is not responsible regardless) or whether the cyclist was negligent (he is).

How the motorist is to blame for this I cannot fathom.

That the cyclist was cited for poor lane positioning is just wrong. Or at least the law under which he is cited is wrong. But he does however appear to be negligent for riding in a roadway in the dark without reflectors or lights. In this case his negligence led to the death of his cycling partner.

The keys to cycling safety are visibility and predictability. Visibility is first, and you can't be (sufficiently) visible in the dark without lights and reflectors.

Serge

It was two hours before sunrise. It was dark. The cyclist riding in the lane was not invisible, but he was understandably difficult to see. When the motorist did see him, he understandably swerved to miss him, and, tragically, collided with the cyclist to the right.

How the motorist is to blame for this I cannot fathom.

That the cyclist was cited for poor positioning is just wrong. He does however appear to be negligent for riding in a roadway without reflectors or lights.

The keys to cycling safety are visibility and predictability. Visibility is first, and you can't be (sufficiently) visible in the dark without lights and reflectors.

Serge
Ditto.

A bicycle is a vehicle. Operating a vehicle on a public roadway at night requires the use of proper lighting/reflective devices.

If a motorist was driving without lights and caused an accident, he too would be charged, just as this cyclist was.

Very sad, though. I'm sure the cyclist who was charged is devastated, as the motorist must be, and the friends and family of the victim. Nobody wins.

Educating drivers is good, but cyclists need to be educated, too.

I want to add more to this. Dennis Hoffarth of the Atlanta Bicycle Campaign is a man who deserves a great deal of respect. His defense of the bicyclist charged in the deadly crash is a worthy effort. The bicyclist in Atlanta is the lowest person in the food chain. Someone has to stand up for us.

But at the same time, Peachtree Industrial Boulevard is not really a "boulevard" at all. It has metamorphosed into a limited access highway. It looks like a freeway, it acts like a freeway, it smells like a freeway...it's a bloody freeway...! People are doing 80 there sometimes! In addition, Peachteee Industrial Boulevard has access roads with posted speed limits of 35 (am I right?) and many alternate routes, except where it passes under I-285. If the crash happened in the underpass I'd still wonder what the younger cyclist was doing riding 5 feet out into the lane.

At his age, the court will need to go easy on him. He made a stupid mistake. He'll be haunted by it all his life (I'm talking about the young cyclist who was charged, not the driver.) Keep in mind the charges are misdemeanor charges of riding too far out into the lane and not having a reflector, nothing serious. To their credit, Gwinnett County police also said that the 35 year-old cyclist who rode with him was riding according to the rules of the road.

This entire investigation was botched from the get-go by law enforcement officers who were clueless as to what the rules of the roads are in Georgia as they pertain to Bicycles. Standby for follow-up stories on this one. For what it's worth, you can have a working taillight on your bicycle in Georgia and still be in violation of the vehicle code if you don't have a rear reflector. Certain recumbent bicycles can be considered illegal if the pedals are mounted too high. Regardless, I would hold judgement until the police reports are made public. It may well be that the driver swerved into Tony to avoid Brian but, then again, based on what was originally reported vs. what is being reported now, there are lots of problems with how the laws are being interpreted by Gwinnett County. By the way, if you read all of the accounts you'll figure out that Peachtree Industrial Blvd is a four lane road that was, in effect, five lanes wide at the point of the accident and the cyclists were riding in the right-hand through lane. http://tinyurl.com/4fhn9


Here are the original accounts and some follow-up stories:


From the AJC on 8/26;
GWINNETT COUNTY: Bicyclist dies after colliding with car

A bicyclist was struck by a car and killed just before 5 a.m. Thursday on Peachtree Industrial Boulevard at McGinnis Ferry Road in Suwanee. Gwinnett County police Sgt. Wayne Thaxton said there are two continuing lanes and a right turn lane on northbound Peachtree Industrial, and the car was in the right continuing lane when one of two bicyclists riding together veered into his lane. The car struck that bike, killing Antonio Serrano, 35, of Alpharetta.


The day after the accident....



Gwinnett Daily Post: http://www.gwinnettdailyonline.com/GDP/archive/articleACDD9B49A821457788919E3D7732E075.asp
SUWANEE — A bicyclist who drifted into traffic was struck and killed Thursday on Peachtree Industrial Boulevard north of McGinnis Ferry Road.

Authorities said Antonio Serrano, 35, and his friend were bicycling north on Peachtree Industrial Boulevard at 5 a.m. Thursday when Serrano drifted from a right-turn-only lane into a northbound lane of traffic.

A 1987 Honda Prelude traveling north at about 45 mph came up behind Serrano and slammed into him, killing him almost instantly. Investigators said either the falling bicycle or Serrano then struck the second bicyclist, 35-year-old Brian Mock. Mock suffered only minor injuries.

“It was just dark and obviously the car was behind them, so they didn’t see the car coming and the car driver couldn’t see them,” said Sgt. Wayne Thaxton of the Gwinnett Police Accident Investigation Unit.

Serrano was wearing a helmet, but bicycle helmets are only designed to protect from low-speed impacts, Thaxton said.

Thaxton said no charges have been filed against the driver, Joseph Nicolosi IV, 19, of Alpharetta, because bicycle riders are supposed to remain on the right edge of the roadway.

At the site of the accident, Peachtree Industrial Boulevard north is two continuing traffic lanes and a right-turn-only lane. Witnesses said Serrano had been bicycling at the left edge of the right-turn-only lane, bordering closely on the right lane of continuing traffic.

Serrano and Mock usually rode their bicycles together every morning, and they had already traveled about 15 miles prior to the accident, Thaxton said.

A week later and in conjunction with a second cyclist fatality in Gwinnett County....



Gwinnett Daily Post: http://www.gwinnettdailyonline.com/GDP/archive/article42C002D531214BECAC2FCB191B3A6C94.asp

...... a bicyclist was struck and killed at 5 a.m. Thursday on Peachtree Industrial Boulevard north of McGinnis Ferry Road. Authorities said Antonio Serrano, 35, and his friend were bicycling north on Peachtree Industrial Boulevard when Serrano was struck by a 1987 Honda Prelude in a northbound lane of traffic.

Serrano is survived by his wife Kathy and two daughters, Isabel Lee, 3 and Zohe Lynn, 18 months. His brother, Victor Serrano, described Serrano as an experienced bicycler who was training for a triathalon.

No charges have been filed against the driver, Joseph Nicolosi IV, 19, of Alpharetta, however the accident will be under investigation for 30 to 45 days.

Several experienced bikers have disagreed with preliminary police investigation results, which has said Serrano should have been riding in the right turn lane to avoid being struck. The right turn lane on that portion of Peachtree Industrial Boulevard is not located at an intersection, rather it is used for entry into several businesses on the right side the road, Thaxton said. The turn lane continues for approximately a mile.

Thaxton cited a Georgia law which states bicycles are considered vehicles that must abide by traffic law. Another section of the Georgia code states bicycles are required to ride at the right edge of the roadway, defined as the entire surface of a road including the turn lane.

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.

Stovall, an acquaintance of Serrano, went to the accident scene last week to see the skid marks for himself. Stovall said he hopes that after the accident investigation is complete, police will charge the driver who struck Serrano.

In the meantime, bicyclists hope the two recent fatalities will remind motorists to be cautious and to share the roadway.

“All we want from the driving public is a little patience,” Stovall said. “If we delay them for a few seconds, try to keep it in perspective. It is not that big a deal.”

Family members said a college fund has been set up for Serrano’s children at the office of David Ragland, C.P.A., at 1503 B, Northside Drive, Atlanta, GA 30318.


And then we have this in response to cyclist's taking issue with the way the investigation was handled....



Good afternoon.

Thank you for writing and expressing your concerns. Apparently Police officers and cyclists have a different interpretation or understanding of the laws that dictate where cyclists are required to ride when on the roadway. In an effort to clarify this issue I have asked representatives from the Gwinnett County Law Department, Solicitor's Office and District Attorney's Office for their opinions in this matter. I will respond to your e-mail in a more thorough manner when I have received their input.

In the mean time, I would like to point out that the investigation into the tragic accident that claimed Mr. Serrano's life is still ongoing and appropriate charges may be made if the facts of the case reveal violation(s) of the law.

Thank you again.

Major Rick Edmunds
Gwinnett County Police Department

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.

Thanks for the facts.

What really happened?

When stories change facts so frequently, it destroys their credibility. I'm suspicious about it, now that you pointed out these things, Livingood.

I should wait until we have all the facts, but my preliminary off-the-cuff reaction is that we sorely need some bicyclist education regarding visibility and some motorist education regarding the proper position of bicyclists on the roadway. The statement (written law in GA???) that through cyclists need to stay to the right in a right-turn-only lane violates the one of the most fundamental principles of lawful vehicular cycling.

Two things, one, how fast was this guy going in the car that he couldn't spot a figure on the road (reflector not needed) through his headlights, was he even paying attention, was he tired, dozing off, looking elsewhere, changing his radio?
Two, if struck from behind and assuming that the biker's virtually invisible (some are), why was the biker virtually invisible? I'm sorry but if my car were doing a mere 20mph and you're completely invisible, soaking up all available oncoming light until the last 15 ft, then I will run you over if you're in the middle of the road.

But anyway, the whole thing smells fishy, if they were both in the lane, and assuming the guy wasn't wearing black felt all over, it's the driver's fault.

"Honda Prelude driven by Luke Joseph Nicolosi, 19, of Alpharetta"
Anyone care to pull a tried and true stereotype?


In another article of this story, it said the cyclist that is being charged was about 5 feet out into the right lane, and the cyclist that was killed was riding to the right, I suspect near a white line dividing the right hand "through" lane from a right turn lane on the cyclists right. There was also another through lane to the left of the cyclists and car. The car swerved right to avoid the cyclist "taking the lane", and hit the one riding near the edge of the road. A bike cop on another forum is going to ask a buddy in that jurisdiction for a copy of the report. I suspect what the police are saying is that the two riders were abreast, and the guy in the lane didn't have anything to throw light back for the driver to see.

Hmmm, upon reading Livngood's links, many other questions come up. Is there a solid white line dividing the right turn lane from the through lanes? If so, then the bicycles have to be on the right side of the through lane, since continuing straight through any intersections would require them to cross the white line, which, at least in my area, is illegal.The construction of the road in this area qould probably have to be seen to be believed. I'm curious as to why the police are asking the county about the issues of where to ride. In California, any questions go to the California Highway Patrol.

At his age, the court will need to go easy on him. He made a stupid mistake. He'll be haunted by it all his life (I'm talking about the young cyclist who was charged, not the driver.)

Data Point: Brian is 35 years old; same age as was Tony at the time of his death.

The statement (written law in GA???) that through cyclists need to stay to the right in a right-turn-only lane violates the one of the most fundamental principles of lawful vehicular cycling.

It's the interpretation of outdated language embedded in the Georgia Code that is confusing the issue. The code sections that address cycling were written before there was any such thing as a deceleration lane on anything but a limited access highway. You can find a summary of Georgia's Bicycle Laws here:
http://www.bikeathens.com/resources/law/statutes.html

Stay to the Right

Section 40-6-294.(a) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable, except when turning left or avoiding hazards to safe cycling, when the lane is too narrow to share safely with a motor vehicle, when traveling at the same speed as traffic, or while exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction; provided, however, that every person operating a bicycle away from the right side of the roadway shall exercise reasonable care and shall give due consideration to the other applicable rules of the road. As used in this subsection, the term "hazards to safe cycling" includes, but is not limited to, surface debris, rough pavement, drain grates which areparallel to the side of the roadway, parked or stopped vehicles, potentially opening car doors, or any other objects which threaten the safety of a person operating a bicycle.

Rear Reflector Mandatory

Section 40-6-296.(a) Every bicycle when in use at nighttime shall be equipped with a light on the front which shall emit a white light visible from a distance of 300 feet to the front and with a red reflector on the rear of a type approved by the Department of Public Safety which shall be visible from a distance of 300 feet to the rear when directly in front of lawful upper beams of headlights on a motor vehicle. A light emitting a red light visible from a distance of 300 feet to the rear may be used in addition to the red reflector.

Bent Riders & Highwheelers Beware

Section 40-6-296.(d) No bicycle shall be equipped, modified, or altered in such a way as to cause the pedal in its lowermost position to be more than 12 inches above the ground, nor shall any bicycle be operated if so equipped.

Reflectors on Pedals

40-6-297.(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell a new bicycle or a pedal for use on a bicycle unless the pedals on such bicycle or such pedals are equipped with reflectors of a type approved by the Department of Public Safety. The reflector on each pedal shall be so designed and situated as to be visible from the front and rear of the bicycle during darkness from a distance of 200 feet. The commissioner of public safety is authorized to promulgate rules and regulations and establish standards for such reflectors.

40-6-297.(b) This Code section shall not apply to any bicycle purchased prior to July 1, 1972, by a retailer for the purpose of resale.

Any bike on a dark night that is not lit up front and rear becomes an unintended target. I feel bad that someone died, but it is hard to muster much sympathy for either rider. People just should not ride at night without lights. Flashing ones preferably.

The construction of the road in this area qould probably have to be seen to be believed. I'm curious as to why the police are asking the county about the issues of where to ride. In California, any questions go to the California Highway Patrol.

Satellite image of Peachtree Ind. Blvd.
http://tinyurl.com/4fhn9

Hmmmnn... very sad.

The stories conflict. The story in the first post has it that Mock, the surviving cyclist, was riding abreast of Serrano, and to Serrano's left. According to that first story, Mock drifted left from the right turn lane into a through lane. Serrano remained to Mock's right in the turn lane. The Honda came up behind Mock in the through lane, veered hard to the right to avoid Mock, and struck Serrano.

The second set of stories have it that *Serrano* drifted left into the through lane from the right turn lane, and was struck from behind.

I guess the first story is the more accurate one, since it is written after the police investigated enough to charge Mock with the crime of not riding as far to the right as practicable. The second set of links and stories don't make any sense of even mistakenly charging Mock with not riding to the right. According to the second set of stories, it would have been Mock who was riding to the right and Serrano to the left.

Anyway, what does seem clear from the first story is that the police have adopted the theory that a cyclist must ride in the rightmost lane of traffic, even if that lane is a right turn lane and the cyclist is not turning right!!

That is, of course, ridiculous, and a competent defense should beat that charge.

The second charge, no reflector, seems indisputable. That's a misdemeanor in Georgia, whereas it's just an infraction here, but I don't suppose the penalties are very stiff even in Georgia. Whatever they are, look for the judget to give the defendant the whole thing in this case.

Lessons:

(1) Obviously, the cops do *not* know the law when it comes to bicycles! If they are pissed off, irritated, or just in the mood to hammer you, look for them to charge you with ridiculous offenses on the basis of safe and legal riding. No, Mock wasn't riding safely here, don't get me wrong, but that's only because he didn't have lights or reflectors. But, as far as I can tell, his *lane positon* was fine.

The flip side of this warning is that the more you do to seem responsible and competent, the less likely it is you're going to be ticketed. The cops are only charging Mock, after all, because someone got killed. If you're negotiating traffic competently and with courtesy, you're not likely to attract the ire of the fuzz.

It also reminds me that it wouldn't be a bad idea to carry a copy of the state's bike laws, just in case it comes to jawin' with Johnny Law.

(2) Have lights! Have reflectors!!

It's very sad. God. Think about it: ten dollars worth of lights and reflectors. With this 19 year old, non-drunk, driver-- who is likely quick reflexed, and quick to notice unusual lights on the road-- two guys would be alive right now. They would have been passed without incident and by now no one involved would have remembered it even happened.

The stories vary. The laws are stupid. But there are some key facts no one is disputing:

1) It was dark.
2) One cyclist was riding without lights/reflectors in the travel lane (in the dark).

If indeed the motorist swerved to avoid the cyclist which caused him to hit (and kill) the second cyclist the lack of consistencies about all the other facts and the stupidity of the laws are all irrelevant to the point that the first cyclist was negligent and is responsible for the death of the second cyclist.

There's only one "if" in that statement, and it's not a very big one...

Serge

After hearing the news on Monday afternoon about Brian Mock being charged, I again viewed the video that was taken by one of the TV news people shortly after the accident. It shows the road crew cleaning up the bikes and debris in the road. Mock's bike was already lying by the side of the road and had a headlight (still on) and what looked like an LED light on the handlebar. I am guessing that if he had two lights on the front that he would have had one or more lights or blinkies on the rear. The video doesn't show Tony Serrano's bike very well. It just shows the road crew person dragging a crumpled bike to the side of the road with what appears to be a "water bottle" style battery dangling from the wire. A battery would indicate lights on his bike as well.
The video also shows the right turn arrows painted on the roadway. I'm guessing that both cyclists were "informed riders" and knew that the right turn lane was for right-turning vehicles only. Since they were going straight, they should have been in the right-most through lane, which it seems is where they were positioned.
One of my colleagues is going to the accident scene today to determine the width of the road. If the lane is too narrow to share, then taking the lane (which is what they appeared to be doing) was the correct thing to do.
If both bikes had headlights and taillights/reflectors, then in my opinion, this would not put the fault on Brian Mock.

Livngood is doing the right thing by asking the police to clarify where they expect cyclists to ride. Please keep us up to date on any responses.

Too many cops think "as far right as practicable" means "as far right as physically possible." According to the story, the cited cyclist was a mere five feet from the lane's edge. Given road conditions, that's often the best place cyclists could be.

I agree that the cyclist deserved a citation for not having a reflector. If we want to be on the roads, we need to follow reasonable rules.

Swerved to avoid? Why didn't he slow down? I mean, obviously the car has the right of way here and is apparently able to mow down anyone going slower than he is. That's the impression that I am getting from some of these comments.

Sure, he should have had reflectors. But when the driver of that car DID see him, did he brake? What if he had come upon a slow-moving vehicle that was larger than a bike? Wouldn't he be charged for either following too closely or being out of control of his vehicle?

I do understand the importance of being seen and wearing reflectors, but shouldn't the responsibility of not killing us come from those who are driving the two ton vehicles AS WELL AS from us?

I think at the least that this motorist should share some of the fault. I think that cops who decide where "as far right as practicable" should be bike cops who have to deal with traffic and turning lanes. And I think we should all wear lights.

You're right, if the driver had to "swerve to avoid" two cyclists, the driver was not keeping an assured clear distance. Yes, the cyclist should have had a reflector (and blinkie, too), but if any driver hits someone from behind, it's the driver's fault, period (that's the law in Ohio, anyway). By law, drivers must always drive at a speed to avoid hitting what's in front of them. That's cold comfort to the deceased's family, but the driver should not be let off the hook.

I think there was an earlier post about someone going out to look at skid marks. I suspect the driver swerved and skid trying to avoid the cyclists.

By the way, I doubt, even in Ohio, a driver is held responsible for rear ending another vehicle if it is dark and the forward vehicle has no lights or reflectors.

If both bikes had headlights and taillights/reflectors, then in my opinion, this would not put the fault on Brian Mock.

Of course. That would be my opinion too, and that of the police as well, I'm sure. The problem is that the police are charging Mock with riding a bicycle WITHOUT rear reflectors/lights, which no one seems to be disputing.

I think there was an earlier post about someone going out to look at skid marks. I suspect the driver swerved and skid trying to avoid the cyclists.

By the way, I doubt, even in Ohio, a driver is held responsible for rear ending another vehicle if it is dark and the forward vehicle has no lights or reflectors.
Fair point. There is an argument about whether the cyclist was "reasonably discernable." But, on a moral level, a driver of a car should drive so as to be able to stop when something comes within his sight. I still think the fault should be legally and morally shared.

...But at the same time, Peachtree Industrial Boulevard is not really a "boulevard" at all. It has metamorphosed into a limited access highway. It looks like a freeway, it acts like a freeway, it smells like a freeway...it's a bloody freeway...! People are doing 80 there sometimes!....

Riding in the dark at 5 a.m. on a "freeway"? My town is full of similar roads. West Houston neighborhoods have NO access to the next neighborhood other than these "mini" highways. Riding a bike on such roads requires a death wish. It is pointless to quibble over the details of how any particular cyclist was killed on such a road. The cause of death was "riding where and when safe cycling is impossible".

The construction of the road in this area qould probably have to be seen to be believed.

Being in a position to judge both, having lived in this (north metro Atlanta) area before, and now with many thousands of California highway miles under my belt:

The construction of the road is far superior to that of an equivalent in CA.

California has the most pathetic road surfaces in the country, actually.

At 5am, on an empty road, if a driver sees a bicyclist pop up ahead, slamming on the brakes MIGHT stop in time. But if you massively slow down and swerve, then you have a better chance of avoiding said cyclist and slamming into whatever lies in the darkness to his/her side.
OTOH, assuming he's going 40mph, the headlights should project out to give at least 2 seconds of warning. Anyone competent should see that swerving to the left means emptyness but the right means a) the curb and b) another cyclist.

No one has mentioned that the proper way for the motorist to pass these cyclists would have been to move left, into the left hand through/passing lane, and not to go to his right, into the right turn only lane. This error in the driver's judgement seems to me like the most important issue in this incident.

I wonder if the motorist was fully awake at 5 AM? Perhaps he dozed off momentarily and woke up just in time to see a cyclist (or both cyclists) directly in front of him.
Why didn't he swerve into the lane to his left? Were there any cars in that lane?

Lots of questions but no answers. :(

But, on a moral level, a driver of a car should drive so as to be able to stop when something comes within his sight. I still think the fault should be legally and morally shared.

In the dark, where there are no intersections or crosswalks for pedestrians, a driver need only drive slow enough to be able to stop or avoid something that is properly lit or reflected within his sight. A motorist cannot be held legally or morally responsible for being able to stop in time to safely avoid hitting an unlit/unreflected cyclist (or pedestrian or anything else for that matter) in the dark, except at intersections/crosswalks. Otherwise, the nighttime speed limit would have to be about 15MPH, period.



No one has mentioned that the proper way for the motorist to pass these cyclists would have been to move left, into the left hand through/passing lane, and not to go to his right, into the right turn only lane. This error in the driver's judgement seems to me like the most important issue in this incident.

That's not as clear as you make it seem. We don't know where exactly in the lane the cyclist was riding, and, therefore, which way was more reasonable to swerve in order to avoid hitting him. For example, the cyclist could have appeared in the motorists headlights so suddenly and only when he was moments from hitting him and didn't have time to check to make sure the left lane was clear. Can you really blame the motorist for not wanting to risk colliding with a car to his left that he did not know, nor have time to establish, to not be there?

Riding in the dark without lights/reflectors is negligent. Any cyclist who rides at night without lights/reflectors should be held responsible for any injuries that result from his choice to do so. He could be facing a strong civil suit from the family of the cyclist who was killed as a result of his negligence.

Serge

There are so many unanswered questions, but I would wonder, if bikes had headlights, they probably had tail lights as well. No reflectors, but taillights and we all know taillights are more visable than reflectors.

Also, it seems the cyclists were trying to get into the through lane and I couldn't imagine they wouldn't have looked or heard an on coming car coming that was close enough to interfear with their move, unless the car was coming up unexpectedly fast and, as mentioned, I wonder why the swerve was to the right and not in the unobstucted left lane, unless the driver was trying to make a right turn in the first place and just hit the cyclist.

It sounds like the driver wasn't paying attention and was driving to fast to react to something unexpected.

Of course, with so much information missing, it's hard to tell what went wrong.

- I just re-read and looked at the pitcure of the road and while I may have made some mistakes in my interpretation of what happened, I still think the driver of the car has some measure of responsibility in the situation. I don't think he was paying as close attention as he should have. I'm not sure how I feel about Mock riding in the center of the lane and I'm sure Serrano will be thinking about this for the rest of his life but there could have been anything on the road ahead of Serrano and he has to make a reasonable move which would have been to pass in the left hand lane.-

No one has mentioned that the proper way for the motorist to pass these cyclists would have been to move left, into the left hand through/passing lane, and not to go to his right, into the right turn only lane. This error in the driver's judgement seems to me like the most important issue in this incident.

This was not a passing situation - it was an emergency action. Whenever possible you swerve AWAY from other lanes of traffic, not into them. Swerving towards the right shoulder (or turn lane in this case) is correct. Swerving to the left would drive cars in the next lane into other lanes or towards oncoming traffic.

It's comical watching people trying to come up with excuses to shift the blame to the driver. The only factor that matters is whether the cycle had adequate rear lighting for the conditions, but who knows if the police even attempted to figure that out.

According to the article I read, the motorist was not speeding. However, like most news stories about bike collisions, there is much that is not stated. Although the cyclist was cited for not having a reflector on his bike, we do not know if he had a taillight. Nor do we know if he had any other rear facing reflective items like the back of his shoes or reflective patches on his clothes or helmet. These may not fit the legal description for the bike reflector, but would certainly have served its purpose.

Data Point: Brian is 35 years old; same age as was Tony at the time of his death.
Oops.

This was not a passing situation - it was an emergency action. Whenever possible you swerve AWAY from other lanes of traffic, not into them. Swerving towards the right shoulder (or turn lane in this case) is correct. Swerving to the left would drive cars in the next lane into other lanes or towards oncoming traffic.

If a driver is suprised and doesn't know if there is traffic around him because he hasn't been paying attention to the traffic around him, a hard right seems a panic move. But if a driver has been paying attention to the road around him, and there were no other cars in the left lane, it makes sense to switch into a lane with no traffic. Not to vere left into oncoming traffic. Move into a free lane travelling in the same direction. It happens all the time in traffic. There is no information saying there were any other cars on the road at the time, and it's not unreasonable to think of this as it was so early.



It's comical watching people trying to come up with excuses to shift the blame to the driver. The only factor that matters is whether the cycle had adequate rear lighting for the conditions, but who knows if the police even attempted to figure that out.

I think we are just trying to come up with likely situations in the absence of information, not trying to blame drivers.

I still think that with so many conflicting reports on the incident, it's important to get all the facts straight (especially since people like me sometimes get the facts mixed up. :eek: )

Satellite image of Peachtree Ind. Blvd.
http://tinyurl.com/4fhn9

Thanks. Wow, are there a lot of roads constructed like that in that area? It looks like the legal place for a through cyclist to ride, at least by my state's rules, would be in the right hand through lane. The way that road is painted, I wouldn't even want to get to the right side of that right turn lane. The road was definitely designed for motorized traffic only.

I still think that with so many conflicting reports on the incident, it's important to get all the facts straight (especially since people like me sometimes get the facts mixed up. :eek: )

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. After all, we can learn from discussing even purely hypothetical situations, as long as they are fairly realistic. In fact, given that we will never know for sure exactly what happened, the best we can do here is discuss a hypothetical discussion based on the true incident.

So all we can do is make assumptions about various relevant facts, and make conclusions based on assuming those assumptions are true. We can even consider various scenarios with different assumptions. For example:

SCENARIO 1
Assume:
- both cyclists had proper lights and reflectors.
- first cyclist was riding in the lane
- motorist saw first cyclist only at last second because he was dialing his cellphone and not looking; swerved to avoid first cyclist and hit second cyclist near the curb.

Then:
- neither cyclist was in the wrong.
- police are wrong for faulting the first cyclist for riding in the lane.
- motorist should probably be found guilty of vehicular manslaughter.

Lessons:
- Use a mirror.
- Don't merge in front of a car until it yields to you.

SCENARIO 2
Assume:
- neither cyclist had proper rear lights or reflectors.
- first cyclist was riding in the lane
- motorist saw first cyclist only at last second because the cyclist was simply not visible earlier; swerved to avoid first cyclist and hit second cyclist near the curb.

Then:
- first cyclist was negligent for riding without reflectors and is liable for the death of his partner.
- motorist did nothing wrong.

Lessons:
-Use proper lights/reflectors.

etc...

You were on a first name basis with the deceased and the cited cyclist? Small world. What are the chances of someone being familiar with both?

The use of someone's first name vs. their surname while perhaps unusual in a thread like this does not, in and of itself, imply an intimate or close association. However, I will admit that I intentionally used their first names because I wanted to remind readers that we are talking about 'friends in the cycling community', not simply Mock, the cited cyclist or Serrano, the decedent. Moreover, they are names I have become familiar with because this story is not new to many of us, nor are their names.

You see, at least in my view, the chances of knowing someone in the cycling community around Atlanta is pretty good if you are active in the cycling community. It is through our associations with people we have met at Southern Bicycle League events, the Buckhead Bellyache, regional ride events, and our tandem club that we came to be familar with Maureen Blyler and David Martin, both of whom were struck and killed by motorists here in Atlanta in 2002, and both of whom I would refer to by their first names even though I only knew them as friendly faces looking out from under a cycling helmet. I suspect that this is the case with many of the people whom others "ride with" in areas outside Atlanta.

So, yes, I would say that the cycling community is a very small world and the longer you've been a part of it and the more diverse your riding interests, the more friends and associates you'll have. Of course, that also raises the probability that someone you know will be involved in a collision with a motor vehicle. In this regard, we must have far too many friends because I can no longer count on two hands the number of friends whom we know on a first name basis that have been hit and seriously injured or killed while cycling, noting that when a tandem gets hit two riders usually go down: who's your emergency contact and care giver when you're ill or incapacitated?

The use of someone's first name vs. their surname while perhaps unusual in a thread like this does not, in and of itself, imply an intimate or close association. However, I will admit that I intentionally used their first names because I wanted to remind readers that we are talking about 'friends in the cycling community', not simply Mock, the cited cyclist or Serrano, the decedent. Moreover, they are names I have become familiar with because this story is not new to many of us, nor are their names.

You see, at least in my view, the chances of knowing someone in the cycling community around Atlanta is pretty good if you are active in the cycling community. It is through our associations with people we have met at Southern Bicycle League events, the Buckhead Bellyache, regional ride events, and our tandem club that we came to be familar with Maureen Blyler and David Martin, both of whom were struck and killed by motorists here in Atlanta in 2002, and both of whom I would refer to by their first names even though I only knew them as friendly faces looking out from under a cycling helmet. I suspect that this is the case with many of the people whom others "ride with" in areas outside Atlanta.

So, yes, I would say that the cycling community is a very small world and the longer you've been a part of it and the more diverse your riding interests, the more friends and associates you'll have. Of course, that also raises the probability that someone you know will be involved in a collision with a motor vehicle. In this regard, we must have far too many friends because I can no longer count on two hands the number of friends whom we know on a first name basis that have been hit and seriously injured or killed while cycling, noting that when a tandem gets hit two riders usually go down: who's your emergency contact and caregiver when your ill or incapacitated?

Oh.

Serge, you must be a Vulcan. :)

Another article for those who are interested:



Police fault bicyclist in fatal accident
http://www.gwinnettdailyonline.com/GDP/archive/article720F98EA0B654ED9B64A9D8F8C54A776.asp

By Andria Simmons
andria.simmons@gwinnettdailypost.com

LAWRENCEVILLE — A confusing aspect of state law governing bicycles on roadways may have contributed to the death of a bicyclist struck by a car while pedaling down Peachtree Industrial Boulevard, officials said.*

Controversy over the interpretation of bicycle laws in Georgia has swirled during the four-month Gwinnett police investigation into the death of 35-year-old Antonio Serrano. The probe was one of the most in-depth that the Accident Investigation Unit has ever conducted, according to its supervisor, Sgt. Wayne Thaxton.

Authorities Monday announced charges were filed against Serrano’s friend and cycling partner, Brian Mock, for minor traffic and equipment violations.

Police allege Mock was riding too far inside the right through-lane of travel on Peachtree Industrial Boulevard. That section of the roadway has a right turn lane about 1,000 feet long — 10 times longer than most turn lanes, according to Thaxton.

The driver of a 1987 Honda Prelude came up behind Mock, who was about 5 feet inside the lane, swerved to miss him and then struck Serrano. Serrano was riding a few feet ahead and to the right of Mock on the edge of the right through-lane.

Serrano, a father of two who competed in triathlons, died at the scene. Mock suffered minor injuries. The driver of the Prelude, Luke Nicolosi, was not injured.

Bicyclists were assuming that the edge of the roadway was the fog line dividing the right through-lane from the right turn lane, according to Cpl. Dan Huggins. Police initially said the bicyclists should have been riding next to the curb in the right turn lane. However, they now acknowledge that the law could be interpreted both ways.

“The current bicycle laws can be confusing to the riders,” Thaxton said. “The issue needs to be resolved.”

Thaxton said he will notify the Georgia Department of Motor Vehicle Safety’s legislative liaison and the deputy legal counsel for Georgia State Patrol about the problem. Both agencies would be able to lobby for a change in the law at the state legislature.

Still, Thaxton said the cause of the fatal collision was Mock’s failure to ride along the edge of the right through- lane. Mock’s presence in the lane prompted Nicolosi to take evasive action and then collide with Serrano, Huggins said. Mock also was cited for not having a red reflector on the rear of his bicycle. No charges have been filed against Nicolosi.

Mock could not be reached for comment on Monday.

Serrano’s brother, Victor Serrano, said his family is ready to move on. He doesn’t hold any ill will toward Mock for the collision. On the contrary, Victor Serrano believes Nicolosi should shoulder some of the blame for the accident.

“I still think he’s partially at fault because I think he was distracted,” Victor Serrano said. “I think if he would have been paying attention, he could have avoided it.”

Bicycling enthusiasts hope Serrano’s death will cause motorists to pay more respect to bicyclists and promote a clearer understanding of the law. Dennis Hoffarth, executive director of the Atlanta Bicycle Campaign said he still has some questions about why police faulted Mock instead of Nicolosi. In some circumstances, Hoffarth said his organization advises bicyclists to “take the lane” and ride in the center to clearly signal to approaching vehicles that there isn’t enough room to pass.

“We need to be very careful that they are accurately interpreting the law at this point,” Hoffarth said. “We have asked them for a meeting, and we hope to meet with them soon about that.”

A clarification in Georgia law about where bicycles should ride with respect to turn lanes would benefit both cyclists and motorists, Hoffarth said. One Georgia law (O.C.G.A. 40-6-291) states that the rules of the road apply to bicycles. Another law (O.C.G.A. 40-6-294) states that bicyclists should ride as close to the right side of the roadway as practical.

Wow. It's been a long time since I've been in here. And boy can I say you guys haven't changed. I read through most of this. I think I find it pretty funny that you guys are saying that the other cyclist was charged with the "DEATH OF HIS COMPANION." Reason I say that is he was charged with being in the lane too far and not having a reflector both of which are misdemeanors. If he would have been charged with the "DEATH OF HIS COMPANION" he more than likely would have been charged with negligent homicide which is a felony. You guys are misconstruing the charge.

Now as for the news articles. Lets just say that the news will say darn near anything to make it sound good. Trust me. I am a police officer and I've seen it all too many times. How many times have you guys been watching the news and the police have "GUNNED DOWN A SUSPECT" when in fact the person was wielding a knife and charging the officers or pointing a gun at officers or trying to run an officer down with a car. The suspect was "GUNNED DOWN" the officer wasn't "Defending himself" right? Don't believe the news, they don't know their heads from their a**es.

On another note the cyclist was more than riding two abreast which in most states is against the law in itself. I know it is here. He was probably riding next to his partner, not like most of us haven't ever done that and didn't assure that people could see him at 5 a.m. It doesn't sound like there was a problem with the whole "Keep to the right as practicable as possible" clause as the other cyclist was there it sounds like just due to nature of the accident and the facts that we do know. The driver of the car wasn't speeding as the police said and swerved to the right to avoid colliding with the cyclist that was riding in the center of the lane. I say center as most lanes are 12 feet in width. If he was 5 feet into the lane he was pretty close to the center. The driver of the car did as much as he could to keep from killing the cyclist charged with riding unsafely.

So re-think your statement about his being charged with the death of his friend. He was charged with "Riding in an Unsafe Manner."

. I think I find it pretty funny that you guys are saying that the other cyclist was charged with the "DEATH OF HIS COMPANION." Reason I say that is he was charged with being in the lane too far and not having a reflector both of which are misdemeanors. If he would have been charged with the "DEATH OF HIS COMPANION" he more than likely would have been charged with negligent homicide which is a felony.

I think all of the posters here agree with you. In fact, at least one person has made this point already, pointing out that the newspaper article's headline is inaccurate. The thread's title is quoted from the newspaper headline. No, Mock is not being charged with "the death" of anyone, since, as you say, he's not being charged with any homicide-related crime. In fact, he's being charged with very minor crimes. One would be hard pressed to find lesser offenses in all of the state code, I'd bet.


On another note the cyclist was more than riding two abreast which in most states is against the law in itself. I know it is here. He was probably riding next to his partner, not like most of us haven't ever done that and didn't assure that people could see him at 5 a.m.

Two abreast is legal where I'm from. Are you saying two abreast is illegal in GA? Or is it that you're saying that riding *more* than two abreast is illegal, and that's what the two guys were doing? If the latter, I don't understand, since obviously two guys can't ride more than two abreast.


It doesn't sound like there was a problem with the whole "Keep to the right as practicable as possible" clause as the other cyclist was there it sounds like just due to nature of the accident and the facts that we do know.

If riding two abreast is legal in GA, and I'd bet it is, then I agree that there doesn't seem to have been any crime in Mock riding to the left of Serrano.

The only illegal thing Mock (and, I guess Serrano) were doing is riding without reflectors, as far as I can tell.

Double post. See next post.

Bicyclists were assuming that the edge of the roadway was the fog line dividing the right through-lane from the right turn lane, according to Cpl. Dan Huggins.

In fairness to this guy Huggins, the paper might be misquoting him here.

But the possibility that Huggins really said this does bring out the need to be clear on the law yourself, and not to rely on the ability of police officers to understand it or interpret it correctly.

No cyclist in his right mind would claim that he thought the roadway ended at the right hand side of the through lane, since there was, after all, ANOTHER LANE OF TRAFFIC to the right of the through lane.

Obviously, the cyclists would be claiming that it is not "practicable" to ride in a right turn lane rather than the through lane, while conceding that the turn lane was, in fact, part of the roadway.

This issue is not just pedantic, since it wasn't initially obvious to the police, despite their thorough investigation, that the law even permits a cyclist to use a through lane to go through an intersection, rather than a turn lane. So, you can't take for granted that the law is going to be interpreted reasonably; you've got to be prepared to make the case yourself, and so you've got to understand just why you think the law says what you think it says.

However, even given what Huggins says, the police now don't seem to think it was a crime for Mock to be merely in the through lane. Huggins says the law is ambiguous, and the cyclists' interpretation is reasonable, so, assuming that the law should be interpreted in a defendant's favor in such cases, it seems the police are willing to grant that Mock's presence in the through lane wasn't a crime.

They are still saying that he was too far from the right side of the through lane, though.

That doesn't seem to me correct, either, at least if it's legal to ride two abreast in GA.

However, I don't think that this case is the one that GA cyclists should litigate the issue over, important as the issue is. Even appellate judges aren't going to look kindly on the riding practices of riders they are going to judge as irresponsible.

Are you saying two abreast is illegal in GA?
No, he's talking about Arizona, and if I were you I'd double check the actual AZ statutes before you decide to believe him.