CuttersRidge

I don't want to put a damper on anything, we've seen yes, accidents, something in Mexico I vaguely remember. In Italy, a few years ago, well, this happened in December, close to this time of year and this was absolutely horrible.

Eight Cyclists Dead After Collision in Italy

Lazyass

I live further south now, but I rode that stretch many times when I lived in Linden. The crest of the hill isn't much of a crest. The driver should have easily seen the riders from even the bottom of the "hill" and slowed down in plenty of time. She was probably looking at a cell phone or something and doesn't want to admit it.

Pemetic2006

I think you're right about the cell phone use. Just yesterday I saw a guy coming up to a stop sign and it was clear as he was slowing down he was looking at his phone. In PA there is a no text rule but I have seen many people that are pretty blatantly ignoring that rule.
Fortunately the majority (like 80 percent) of my typical route is not on roads but paved trails.

Spaghetti Legs 

Horrible accident, glad that it looks like the worst of the injuries was to the bikes. I'm sure there will be some mental scars when those folks decide to get back on a bike. In my current neck of the woods, drivers in general or more bike aware and courteous than other places I have lived. Still, I get passed on curves quite a bit, scary. Also seems like a near majority of drivers I see are yakking on a cell phone.

TimmyT 

Wow. Really sorry to see this. I hope the riders heal quickly.
I'd like to say that my first reaction is to brake, but I know from experience that a lot of drivers first instinct, including my own, is to go around cyclists.

Despite what auto manufacturers might advertise, the biggest safety device in a car is between the steering wheel and the driver's seat.

Robbie, what insurance should I have for riding in addition to my medical? I am not riding with car insurance, so I should buy something to cover (a) me hitting someone and (b) an uninsured/underinsured pedestrian/cyclist/motorist hitting me.

YogaKat

I hate these stories and hope they recover fully.

Oklahoma recently passed a law that makes texting and driving illegal. Unfortunately I'm sure there are still many that will disregard it and take their chances.

Sending a message: Oklahoma's law against texting while driving takes effect Nov. 1 | News OK

RobbieTunes

Many states offer auto insurance, of a sort, for people who do not own cars, and this includes Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage, and Medical Payments coverage (in your state, it's called PIP-Personal Injury Protection).

This allows you to have extra coverage for times when you operate someone else's car and the car's coverage is inadequate, or when struck by a car in most states, or when a passenger in a car and the car's coverage is inadequate. It's generally called non-owner's coverage.

I don't know about NY, but here in NC, you cannot get a driver's license until you are listed on someone's policy or have a non-owner's policy, and provide a form to DMV that they can use to certify that you have coverage.

The coverage has 3 basic parts:
1-Liability coverage, because, yes, as a bicyclist, you can cause damage to other people and property.
2-Uninsured/Underinsured coverage, because you can be the victim of an uninsured driver, or one that has a lot less coverage than needed for your injuries.
3-Medical Payments/PIP, where there is a stated amount of medical bill coverage for you, generally from $500 to $5000, for bills from an accident.

In an accident, generally you use Medical Payments/PIP to cover initial costs/deductibles, etc, because it has such a low limit. It is no-fault, and in many states, you collect it by presenting incurred bills, even if you have health insurance. In many states, they've eliminated the double-dipping part of this.

Then, if you are not at fault, and the person at fault either has no coverage or coverage limits less than your "claim," you turn to your UM/UIM coverage. That carrier, which is yours, steps into the shoes of the at-fault party, and acts as their representative, attempts to settle the claim, and then pursues the at-fault person's carrier for their limits.

The liability coverage only comes into play if you're at fault. Your carrier investigates and defends you from claims, as we like to say, "real or imagined."

RobbieTunes

Texting and driving is illegal in NC, and many other states.

I was surprised to learn in WI that using the cell phone and driving also was illegal.
I noticed far fewer drivers actually using cells there than I would see here.

Then again, it's Wisconsin, not unusual to see people driving 55 in a 55 zone.
I got pulled there, twice, going 62 in a 55 on a 4-lane divided highway.

RobbieTunes

I'll bump this, just to inform people what happens when 4 cyclists in a pace line, on the R, wearing high-Vis, get hit.

The youngest rider was released with multiple minor fractures. I'm not sure what they are. 34 years old.

The 57 year old man has multiple fractures, including a leg, but can move around, so they sent him home.

The 57 year old lady is a high-mileage rider, probably puts most of us in the dust on mileage and speed. She has a broken pelvis and has had other fractures set with pins and screws, is having more surgeries on her pelvis today. She has a huge gash on her head being held together with staples, and has been conscious.

The 60-year old and a very accomplished cyclist has not regained consciousness yet. He is on a ventilator because multiple fractures besides facial fractures and skull fracture are interfering with breathing. A shunt has been placed to reduce brain swelling. Significant head trauma. Looks like months in a hospital or facility.

One of my acquaintances does about 30,000k a year riding. His main partner was the female rider, and a group of about 7 or 8 of them discussed Saturday riding and Sunday riding, and these four chose that particular ride.

lostarchitect 

Awful. Thanks for the update.

Spaghetti Legs 

Wow, not good. Thoughts and best wishes to all, especially the gentleman on the vent.

Interesting, Robbie, you mentioned the relatively slow driving speeds in Wisconsin. I grew up in eastern NC, still visit regularly, and folks just drive faster there than other places I have lived and visited. Seems to be true across all settings, Triangle area freeways, rural, suburban, Piedmont as well as eastern NC. Not sure if it was a factor in this crash, just an observation.

OldsCOOL

Just a comment on cell phone use and effects on driver coherence. There was a study conducted some years ago to calculate the loss of conscious awareness to surroundings when talking and driving. Best I can recall is that you lose a significant amount of awareness, something comparable to losing 25% of your vision while being on the phone. Maybe someone can offer more on this.

This grieves me.

RobbieTunes

Insurance studies back that up, and there is actually little difference between using a hand-held vs. Bluetooth or hands-free headsets. Which means it's likely due to an allocation of brain resources. As someone who had to drive a ton on rural roads, I can easily say a cell phone is a distraction, but my employer considered road time to be properly spent on the cell phone; there has never been any consideration for travel time with any of my employers. Truth is, most adjusters (and law enforcement) with vehicle-mounted laptops are often on the phone and the laptop while driving. I lost a colleague that way; he crossed the center-line and hit a logging truck while on the phone and the laptop.

In this accident, the charges are pending, because now they think the driver was actually on the phone. Her daughter already told the media that she was on the phone with her mom and was told to "come here, I hit somebody." Now, she's backing off of that, saying her mom called her after the impact. The driver is claiming there was an oncoming car that prevented her from avoiding the cyclists (as if a brake pedal wasn't standard on a Crown Vic), but one of the cyclists remembers no car, and he rides with a mirror. Everything points to what appears to be limited brain resources and now a bit of trying to rationalize the actions, which is a basic defense mechanism. She has now blamed the terrain, the speed limit, the oncoming car, but not yet, the bicyclists. Very few people simply say "it was my fault."

The legal system will never equalize this, nor should it, in a physical way, as it was an accident, but everything points to greatly inadequate insurance coverage for the damages caused, and life-changing consequences for at least 2 riders. The vehicle driver, of course, is simply facing tickets and will probably not suffer financially in any way. Even with minimum limits, she'll probably not face a 20-year judgement against her home, credit, car, assets, etc. The way the laws work, when and if any claims are settled, the driver will be named on the releases. And with no releases, no checks issued.

Everyone's hoping for better medical outcomes today. The only way these cyclists could have been more defensive and safe would have been to not ride. I want to re-assert: these were experienced cyclists who do it right. Single file, right at the white line, HiVis apparel, lights with dynos. They are all about safety, and ride in the tens of thousands of miles per year. Only scheduling conflicts kept 2 others from riding with them that day. Those two are stressed, because with 2 more riders, perhaps they'd have been at a different point at that place and time, etc. All the "what if's" are agonizing.

RobbieTunes

Yep, nice roads, wide open, and 55 is considered a polite suggestion. Other than a couple of close calls with oncoming passers, and a couple of "whiffs" by cars from the rear, I've generally had very good treatment by cars. They almost always go out of their way to go around with plenty of room, and I always wave and mouth a thanks. 30 years ago, in eastern NC, you were as likely to get something thrown at you as anything, riding or running. Those days have pretty much passed, and familiarity did not seem to breed contempt.

I see SHP or a county cop almost every time I ride, and I've had them tell me to simply get a tag number if there's a problem, but nothing worth going to police about. Doesn't mean I haven't left a cinder block on the roof of a car that ran me off the road as a jogger, or that I haven't attacked and kicked in the door panel of another one at the next light, but those days are long past. Other than riding through a trailer park and still looking for the Cadillac STS that buzzed drrobwave and I, I have no issues.

Sir_Name 

Wow. The new /changed details (possible phone use at the time of the accident, possibly no oncoming traffic) are...troubling. I have a very long drive to and from work, and see plenty of craziness every day. And plenty of accidents every week. It's too easy to lose track of exactly how much energy is involved in moving two tons at 40-70 mph and what the potential outcomes are for anyone in a driver's viscinity or path should something 'go wrong'. Driving is dangerous enough if done responsibly. That's not necessarily to place blame in this case as I don't have all of the facts here, more as a general comment (to the choir I'm sure).

The balance of repercussions could use some work.

Scooper

Woman who hit 4 cyclists in Johnston Co. was on probation for drug charges | WNCN

RobbieTunes

So far, the "but it was 55mph and she couldn't stop in time" folks are saying the terrain and curve combined "with the speed limit" to remove her reaction time. I've ridden that road. a 5' tall obstacle is visible from quite a ways from the direction she was going, and some of us are considering a re-construction with cyclists and video to show that.

The 55 "limit" is just that, not a mandatory speed, and is 88'/second. It's very likely she had 4 seconds or more to react. If she was going less than that, she had even more time. I've not had a chance to get over there and look at skids, but I'd bet even money there either is none or they're after impact.

norskagent

here's an update on Michael D.'s condition, this blog also has some very interesting bike/law articles:
Update on Mike Dayton | Bike Law

jimmuller 

Hate to read about stuff like this, wish no one had to suffer through it.

We had a case a year or so ago where a woman drove though a group of cyclists on an annual organized ride. The driver veered over to the wrong side of the road. It later turned out that her license had been revoked, she was delivering drugs or something, and wasn't totally sober. There are idiots everywhere.

I worry during every commute. I was almost hit this morning going through a supermarket parking lot. Woman was looking where she wanted to go, not where she was going, turned left as I was going past. I yelled and veered and she hit the brakes. Probably thought "I didn't see you!" (Well, of course you didn't. But you should have.)

I do hope those folks recover quickly. It gets harder when you are more, shall we say, mature.

fender1

Sad story. Driver-less/automated cars can't come fast enough......

RobbieTunes

Thanks, JP. I'm getting some updates from one of Lynn's riding partners, as well. My mind processes the blog differently than many, but at least someone is out there doing something, and for all I know, it's necessary. In this case, the so-called ambulance chasers are probably needed, because no one else gives a hoot, it seems.

Most states have or set adequate limits of insurance coverage for cars that hit other cars, but bicycle accidents involving adults are unique:

1-The fault much more often lies with the car (bicycle accidents with children most often have the child at fault).

2-The injuries much more often exceed the legal minimums of coverage required by law. Quite often they exceed whatever coverage there is, minimum or not.

3-Not all states allow the adult cyclist to bring in his/her own UnderInsured Motorist carrier (UIM). The same protection afforded you if you get hit in your car by an Un-Insured or Under-Insured motorist is not always afforded you on a bike, even though you paid for it and a bike must follow motor vehicle laws. This leaves adult cyclists often responsible for the medical bills, out of work, with not nearly enough compensation. A simple change in statue by adding less than 10 words could fix that, but for some reason, states do not do so.

Why is this?

1-Low Frequency. Cyclist accidents are low frequency, therefore not something legislators address. If they do after situations like this, they get chided by motorists. Politicians do not tend to write bills (or have lobbyists do so) for a small segment of the population unless they can get votes on it.

2-High Severity. The high severity of injuries is in comparison to the high frequency auto injuries, which are much lower, and limits are set for the average accident involving cars. The carriers would have to increase coverage, and premium, and the public drives cars, and they'd complain. Again, no-win for the politicians.

3-Low Constituency. Compare cyclists to vehicle license holders. Not even a drop in the bucket. Legislators have no need to address this cycling issue, the voters have motors.

Insurance Company reluctance is based on 1, 2, and 3. - Insurance companies rate and charge based on probability. This means high frequency, low severity occurrences are easily tracked and predicted, both frequency and severity. Insurance companies also need a market/constituency. There is a large market/constituency for vehicle drivers, but developing a product for cyclists? Not worth their time.

To me, the solution is to allow cyclists to purchase UM and UIM coverage for themselves, limited to riding their bikes, and bar Medical Payment coverage for bike accidents, so they can't collect every time they fall off their bike. Put a minimum level of special damages required, like $1000, and let the cyclists choose their limits (I'd choose $1M). Low-frequency, High-severity occurrences get rated fairly reasonably, and statistics are available to show how many policies would need to be sold to break even, or be profitable. Allow piggy-backing the policies onto the cyclists' auto policies to defray the underwriting and admin expense.

Almost all states require liability coverage for drivers, and all of them allow drivers to elect a level of UM/UIM coverage to add to this. All they'd have to do is allow a cyclist endorsement that allows the driver to have a separate coverage for damages from being hit on a bicycle, for damages higher than the minimum limits required by law. As a cyclist then, you could elect to cover yourself or not, but situations like this would go from being so blatantly unfair to a choice made by the cyclist.

jethin

Sad story -- I hope the cyclists recover swiftly. Be careful out there, whether riding or driving.

crank_addict

Damn, I hate reading about this stuff. Definitely not something you want a spouse or S.O. to read as well. Wishes for rapid healing and sound mind to these victims.

Here's my take. No amount of law is going to protect a cyclist. My guess most of us see driver infractions everyday including in the states where its unlawful to drive while handling a phone to the ear or texting. 99% of the drivers don't know anything about a 3 ft. distance. If hit and down for the count, game over. What has the law done for the victim? What's needed is a change of attitude, significant awareness, create dire consequences to the vehicle driver.

I don't get half the asinine laws anyways. In Illinois, a rear seat passenger can get ticketed for not wearing a seat belt, yet one can sit in the back of a pickup truck as long as the head is below the top of a cab roof. Adult motorcyclist don't need to wear a helmet, can wear shorts, sandals, no shirt and even go without eyewear (providing the motorcycle has some sort of windscreen).

And about all this insurance business. I know of one who did take it to court and it came down to negotiated between insurance / lawyers. Cyclist got the short end by a long shot. The fine print some of these scum lawyers will fight for and have no sympathy for a busted up cyclist. This one was about which side of the white line the cyclist was riding at the time of impact. NOTE: It would've worked to his reward had he been riding the LEFT of the white line AT THE TIME OF getting hit. Nutz.

The only way it will strongly send a message if the states enacted a mandatory second degree manslaughter for hitting a cyclist.

RobbieTunes

The primaries are not over. You're my man.

Man, in that case, I can't see how it matters which side of the white line makes a difference. It does not here, other than to put more onus on the car if the cyclist is outside the white line. In fact, most pedestrians struck by vehicles do not result in charges if the pedestrian is inside the white line, but with bikes classified as vehicles, they have the lane.

In NC, we have misdemeanor death by vehicle. Consider those words. Death. Misdemeanor. WTF?

Lazyass

Angier woman charged in Johnston County bicyclist crash
Read more at Angier woman charged in Johnston County bicyclist crash :: WRAL.com