Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 52
  1. #1
    The Site Administrator: Currently at home recovering from a couple of strokes,please contact my assistnt admins for forum issues Tom Stormcrowe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    South Florida
    My Bikes
    Techna Wheelchair and a Sun EZ 3 Recumbent Trike
    Posts
    16,160
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Tactical Analysis Thread: Cycling Related Fatalities/Serious Injury Incidents

    This thread is to discuss Cyclist fatalities/injury incidents and possible solutions to the issues.

    Guidelines
    1. No names. This is to protect the families from emotional trauma and avoid complicating any legal cases. No names means NO NAMES, period in this thread.
    2. Location/date/time/known conditions
    3. If a post is speculation, it MUST be identified as such
    4. Respect and decorum at all times: Think rules of order. No insults or barbs.
    5. Follow general Bike Forum Guidelines and policies
    6. If an impasse is reached, agree to disagree and possibly revisit the issue later after all parties have had time to think.
    7. If you do revisit an issue, link back or quote the specific post in this thread to avoid confusion


    Follow these guidelines and this can be developed into a resource for the forums and cycling in general.
    Last edited by Tom Stormcrowe; 06-20-07 at 09:10 AM.
    on light duty due to illness; please contact my assistants for forum issues. They are Siu Blue Wind, or CbadRider or the other 3 star folk. I am currently at home recovering from a couple of strokes. I am making good progress, happily.


    . “He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”- Fredrick Nietzsche

    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." - Immanuel Kant

  2. #2
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Link to article
    permalink to same article.

    Oregonlive search for all Aloha cyclist articles.


    Link to comments from rider who was there.

    Date: June 09, 2007
    Time: "Just before noon"
    Location: southbound Northwest Cornelius-Schefflin Road north of Cornelius in Oregon

    Undisputed facts:
    • 5 cyclists traveling southbound planning to turn left onto a sideroad at an upcoming T intersection where the only turn is left.
    • Motorist approaching from behind.
    • Motorist was encroaching into oncoming lane illegally crossing solid yellow in order to pass cyclists.
    • Cyclist drifted left into path of passing motorist as he was looking back.
      • Oregonian story: "[The cyclist], riding second in the single-file line, signaled for a left turn, drifting left as he prepared to turn. "
      • Rider Michael comment: " I was looking at his face and bike as the car hit him. "
    • It is generally considered acceptable to cross over double yellows in order to pass cyclists when there is no oncoming traffic even though in most states it is technically illegal. In some states, though not in Oregon, it is explicitly legal to do so.
    Speculation (based on reasonable assumptions)
    1. From the google maps image it is obvious that the corner of the road and the side road is a field, and unless it was full of corn or some crop, and early June is still pretty early for that ("knee high by the 4th of July" is what is traditionally expected of corn) that blocked the sightlines from the road to the side road, the driver could see if the side road had any approaching traffic on it.
    2. Driver was probably traveling at around 60 mph (88 feet per second)
    3. Cyclists were probably traveling at around 15 mph (22 feet per second)
    4. At 10 seconds prior to the crash, the cyclists, still over 200 feet from the intersection/point of impact, were probably still traveling near the fog line.
    5. At 10 seconds prior to the crash, the motorist, about 650 feet behind the cyclists, had to decide whether to slow down or pass.
    6. It is likely that at the time the motorist decided to pass she had no way of knowing the cyclists would be turning left onto the side road.
    7. It is likely that the motorist could see that there was no traffic on the side road and no oncoming traffic, and, so, it probably appeared to be a perfectly safe and reasonable place to pass the cyclists to her, even if it meant crossing the double yellow some to pass with safe distance.
    8. At 40-60 mph, when the cyclist suddenly signaled, looked back and drifted into her path, there was probably nothing she could do in time to avoid hitting him.
    Analysis:
    1. Neither the motorist nor the cyclists were operating according to defensive driving principles. With the motorist this is obvious, not only was she in not being defensive, she was in blatant violation of several laws. For the cyclist, he apparently was riding near the fog line inviting close passing, and almost certainly drifted, swerved or moved in some way left without first verifying it to be clear and safe to do so.
    2. The motorist was in technical violation of driving with a suspended license and crossing a double yellow, but this could just as easily have happened in a slightly different scenario where these factors did not apply. In particular, if her license was not suspended and they were planning on turning left into a driveway or roadside stand on the other side along a section of this road without a double yellow, but everything else happened exactly the same, it would be difficult to find fault with anything she did, but the crash would still have been the result. Furthermore, her behavior was arguably normal and certainly should not have been unexpected for a road like that.
    3. Since another rider at the scene admitted to not even being aware of the passing vehicle until it hit the rider in front of him, it is reasonable to assume that the rider who was hit also was unaware of its presence, at least not until it was too late. This indicates a lack of paying attention to what was going on behind them considering they were preparing to turn left.
    Comments
    Whenever I ride with other cyclists, no matter how "experienced" they are, I am almost always alarmed at how lackadaisacal they seem to be with left turns, and, in particular, how late they wait before begining the left turn process. I'm often all the way over to the left before they even look behind for the first time. Having said that, there is nothing necessarily wrong with waiting until the last few seconds/50 feet to initate the process, as long as you take a good look back and are willing to stop and wait for a gap if you don't have one. But it's also important to be able to look back to check things out without drifting in the process, which is also something many cyclists don't seem able to do. This tragic incident seems to be an example of all of that.

    Edits:
    6/16: stripe is yellow solid/dashed, not double yellow.
    6/16: Added justification for why neither was defensive (analysis #1)
    Last edited by Helmet Head; 06-16-07 at 11:25 AM.

  3. #3
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    23,052
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Uh, HH there is one little flaw in the analysis concerning the decision making process by the driver... I believe that the lead cyclist had started to execute a left turn... so therefore was already moving out and in the path of the motorist. Why would she then chose to move around the cyclists because as a group they were now spreading out?

    Is it possible that she made a hasty decision and underestimated the speed of the cyclists and accelerated to try to "make the gap" before the next cycist moved out, at which time that cyclist also decided to move out. Perhaps she was motivated by the notion that she had to get ahead of the cyclists...

    A situation like this is similar to two motorists trying to occupy the same lane and moving over at the same time from either side of an empty lane space... suddenly meeting in the middle... but the cyclist in this case does not have the speed to quickly react and pull away as motorists might do...

  4. #4
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by genec
    Uh, HH there is one little flaw in the analysis concerning the decision making process by the driver... I believe that the lead cyclist had started to execute a left turn... so therefore was already moving out and in the path of the motorist. Why would she then chose to move around the cyclists because as a group they were now spreading out?

    Is it possible that she made a hasty decision and underestimated the speed of the cyclists and accelerated to try to "make the gap" before the next cycist moved out, at which time that cyclist also decided to move out. Perhaps she was motivated by the notion that she had to get ahead of the cyclists...

    A situation like this is similar to two motorists trying to occupy the same lane and moving over at the same time from either side of an empty lane space... suddenly meeting in the middle... but the cyclist in this case does not have the speed to quickly react and pull away as motorists might do...
    Do you know if the first cyclist made the turn, and, how far the 2nd cyclist was behind him?

    In any case, if she did *** it, they were turning, she was going straight. If there was no double yellow legal technicality in play here, the onus on yielding the ROW would be clearly on the cyclists. The fact that she was illegally passing muddies the legal waters, but in terms of general principles and best practices, the left turners should have looked back and made sure it was clear and safe to turn before proceeding.

    Given the likely speeds involved, I'm fairly certain (speculation alert!) that she must have initiated and was committed to passing several seconds before they provided any clue as to their intention to turn left, and no sudden acceleration was required. I continue to believe that the 3rd cyclist's admission of a total lack of awareness of her even being behind them until she hit the cyclist in front of him speaks volumes about the level of attention (and lack thereof) these left-turners were placing to the situation behind them.

    It's also entirely conceivable that the 2nd cyclist, who was the one who was hit, was several seconds behind the first cyclist, that the first cyclist made it safely across, and the driver assumed the other cyclists would yield to her until she passed them. How could she be held responsible to foresee or be blamed for the 2nd cyclist drifting into her path while he was looking back?

  5. #5
    Senior Member randya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    in bed with your mom
    My Bikes
    who cares?
    Posts
    13,696
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    honestly serge, haven't we beaten this particular incident to death yet (no pun intended)?. No one agrees with you. Stop browbeating us.

    Everyone else: please don't feed the troll!

  6. #6
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by randya
    honestly serge, haven't we beaten this particular incident to death yet (no pun intended)?. No one agrees with you. Stop browbeating us.

    Everyone else: please don't feed the troll!
    Randy, there were quite a few folks who expressed agreement with my analysis in the thread that got deleted, but they were easy to miss in the deluge of posts expressing disagreement with me, but without explanation, much like the post you just made here. Anyway, I'm not going to respond to any more posts in this thread, except to link to this post/explanation, that are not addressing the facts about the incident in question, and analysis and speculation that arises therefrom.

  7. #7
    Senior Member John C. Ratliff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Beaverton, Oregon
    My Bikes
    Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet
    Posts
    1,910
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Speculation verses reality

    HH has duely labeled his work as speculation, and left out an important, perhaps overriding fact. The fact was the rainy weather, with low-hanging clouds. One other fact is that what he sees in two-dimensional in Google Maps. This area is not level.

    Today, I drove this area, and was surprised at how little Long Road is. While I could not stop the car due to Friday evening traffic, I did not see any identifying wreckage at the area. I did see some skid marks just before the intersection (driving north to south), but could not relate them necessarily to the accident, as there were other skid marks on the roadway just beyond the intersection.

    For those of you who are following HH's speculation, remember it is just that. He does not have all the fact (although he has more than he had two days ago, and still forgot about the weather). These two statements, presented as fact, are from a newspaper. While the reporter may have done his best, no statement from a newspaper is considered completely reliable:
    Cyclist drifted left into path of passing motorist as he was looking back.
    Oregonian story: "[The cyclist], riding second in the single-file line, signaled for a left turn, drifting left as he prepared to turn. "
    Rider Michael comment: " I was looking at his face and bike as the car hit him. "
    It is generally considered acceptable to cross over double yellows in order to pass cyclists when there is no oncoming traffic even though in most states it is technically illegal. In some states, though not in Oregon, it is explicitly legal to do so.
    Accident investigators do not rely much on either newspaper articles, or second-hand information. Eye witness statements, taken within 24 hours of the event, are best. Then there are photographs taken just after the event, physical evidence, time lines, etc., that can be used to re-construct what actually happened. But accident investigators will never take a short article in a newspaper and make an absolute determination as to what happened from that. It is very easy to do "armchair investigations," and present them as fact, which is what HH did prior to the deletion of that thread. Here, at least, he is presenting it as his speculation, which is better. It is most likely wrong, however. HH states in his "analysys" above:
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    Neither the motorist nor the cyclists were operating according to defensive driving principles.
    That is speculation on his part concerning the cyclist. The Washington County Sheriff's Department has confirmed it with the driver, through the citations issued.
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    The motorist was in technical violation of driving with a suspended license and crossing a double yellow, but this could just as easily have happened in a slightly different scenario where these factors did not apply. In particular, if her license was not suspended and they were planning on turning left into a driveway or roadside stand on the other side along a section of this road without a double yellow, but everything else happened exactly the same, it would be difficult to find fault with anything she did, but the crash would still have been the result. Furthermore, her behavior was arguably normal and certainly should not have been unexpected for a road like that.
    The motorist was in actual, real violation of Oregon statute, and was cited for it. Her behavior is not normal, unless it is open season on bicyclists. They were signaling a turn, for Pete's sake! She had the responsibility to operate her vehicle in a safe manner according to the rules of the road. Actually, her responsibility was to not be driving at all, as her license was suspended. To excuse her in any way is not reasonable.

    By the way, the line is not double solid. It is solid on the south-bound side, and dashed on the center, for about two-hundred yards in front of that intersection. Again, when I said it looked like a solid double, that was speculation and noted as such from the aerial shot from Google. Being on the ground today, I was able to see what it did look like.
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    Since another rider at the scene admitted to not even being aware of the passing vehicle until it hit the rider in front of him, it is reasonable to assume that the rider who was hit also was unaware of its presence, at least not until it was too late. This indicates a lack of paying attention to what was going on behind them considering they were preparing to turn left.
    It is not "reasonable" to assume anything until all the facts are known of the situation. There is a breakdown to the word "assume" which goes something like this ("ass"_"u"_"me"). This is what is happening here, again, after the other thread has been deleted.

    I hope to look more thoroughly at that intersection on Sunday, and may be able to provide some photos.

    John
    John Ratliff

  8. #8
    Former Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    dropmachine.com
    Posts
    4,061
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Reports these supposedly *rare* hit-from-behind accidents just keep coming. Of the 4 fatal accidents I have heard of in Ontario this year, 3 have been of this type.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Wilmington, DE
    My Bikes
    2003 Specialized Hardrock, 2004 LOOK KG386i, 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1
    Posts
    8,851
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ghettocruiser
    Reports these supposedly *rare* hit-from-behind accidents just keep coming. Of the 4 fatal accidents I have heard of in Ontario this year, 3 have been of this type.
    I keep seeing reports of cyclists getting hit from behind while riding completely out of the way of motorists' normal paths. Seems the hit from behind when actually in a motorist's intended path is still very rare.

  10. #10
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    23,052
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by joejack951
    I keep seeing reports of cyclists getting hit from behind while riding completely out of the way of motorists' normal paths. Seems the hit from behind when actually in a motorist's intended path is still very rare.
    So you are suggesting that on a 55MPH road, we should remain right in the motorists' path for complete safety.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Wilmington, DE
    My Bikes
    2003 Specialized Hardrock, 2004 LOOK KG386i, 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1
    Posts
    8,851
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by genec
    So you are suggesting that on a 55MPH road, we should remain right in the motorists' path for complete safety.
    I don't think we really need to get into this any more than has already been discussed but... I believe it's useful to be in the motorist's path to get their attention just in case you happen to need it, although that's a more minor reason in comparison to the other benefits of riding in the traffic lane. Once you have their attention, if there's room to make passing you easier, it would be the courteous thing to use that space.

  12. #12
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    23,052
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by joejack951
    I don't think we really need to get into this any more than has already been discussed but... I believe it's useful to be in the motorist's path to get their attention just in case you happen to need it, although that's a more minor reason in comparison to the other benefits of riding in the traffic lane. Once you have their attention, if there's room to make passing you easier, it would be the courteous thing to use that space.
    I am sorry, I don't understand "in case you happen to need it."

    That implies that I may only rarely need a motorists' attention... yet you earlier implied that if I don't have a motorists' attention, I am at risk of an overtaking accident.

    I am confused, do I need a motorists attention or are there alternatives such as riding completely out of the way of motorists' normal paths?

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Wilmington, DE
    My Bikes
    2003 Specialized Hardrock, 2004 LOOK KG386i, 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1
    Posts
    8,851
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by genec
    I am sorry, I don't understand "in case you happen to need it."

    That implies that I may only rarely need a motorists' attention... yet you earlier implied that if I don't have a motorists' attention, I am at risk of an overtaking accident.

    I am confused, do I need a motorists attention or are there alternatives such as riding completely out of the way of motorists' normal paths?
    As should be obvious by the cyclist death threads posted here where a cyclist was completely out of the way of a motorist and was still drifted into due to some distraction (disregarding the motorist who crosses into oncoming traffic lanes and takes out a cyclist), simply beng out of the way yet still near the traffic lanes is no guarantee of safety. Neither is riding in such a manner as to get the motorists' attention but it does seem to me that it would reduce the risk that they would drift into you because they were only paying attention to what was directly in front of them. Unless they were not paying attention to what was in front of them (and thus probably drifting around on the road), there is little reason that they should hit you. I'll admit that being in the motorists path exposes you to such hazards as excessive speed with poor visibility (curves, hill crests, fog, bright sun, etc.) but at least you are now relying on both the motorist's attention and your own and not simply the motorist's attention. If visibility were so bad that there was no way a motorist could not detect you in time to slow to your speed or you could not detect them in time to move out of the way, then this technique is not very useful but I think those situations are very rare. I've yet to encounter one even in some pretty bad snow storms.

    My statement "in case you happen to need it" is referring to cycling on a stretch of road with no intersections where the vast majority of the time you could be perfectly safe just staying out of the way and not worrying at all about having a motorist's attention as nothing they would normally do would affect you. Where there are intersections, there are so many more reasons to want a motorist's attention that drifting isn't even worth discussing.

  14. #14
    Former Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    dropmachine.com
    Posts
    4,061
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by joejack951
    I keep seeing reports of cyclists getting hit from behind while riding completely out of the way of motorists' normal paths. Seems the hit from behind when actually in a motorist's intended path is still very rare.
    I think we've all heard this song before.

    Suffice to say it does not seem that way to me.

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Wilmington, DE
    My Bikes
    2003 Specialized Hardrock, 2004 LOOK KG386i, 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1
    Posts
    8,851
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ghettocruiser
    I think we've all heard this song before.

    Suffice to say it does not seem that way to me.
    Can you link to the accident reports from Ontario? I'm assuming these support your claim.

  16. #16
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks John, I made a couple of minor updates in my post above.

    I don't know why you think I'm any more clear about what is fact and what is speculation now than I was in the deleted thread. I thought it was quite clear there too. Oh well, that's behind us now.

    Quote Originally Posted by John C. Ratliff
    It is not "reasonable" to assume anything until all the facts are known of the situation.
    I'm not an accident investigator and my purpose here is not to determine what actually happened. That would be entirely inappropriate (not to mention impossible).

    My purpose, as it always is on this forum with respect to these incidents, is to speculate about what is likely to have happened, to assume that IS what happened, and discuss what, if anything, the cyclist could or should have done to avoid the crash, assuming those speculations are facts. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand.

    Quote Originally Posted by John C. Ratliff
    The motorist was in actual, real violation of Oregon statute, and was cited for it. Her behavior is not normal, unless it is open season on bicyclists. They were signaling a turn, for Pete's sake! She had the responsibility to operate her vehicle in a safe manner according to the rules of the road. Actually, her responsibility was to not be driving at all, as her license was suspended. To excuse her in any way is not reasonable.
    Just because her behavior was in actual, real violation of Oregon statute, and she was cited for it, does not mean that behavior was not normal. Nor does accepting that that behavior is normal mean it is open season on bicyclists. That's ridiculous.

    By the way, when I say her behavior is normal, I mean "usual, typical, expected".

    Whether you like it or not, all of the following is usual, typical and expected (or at least it should be by the experienced cyclist):

    1. Motorists that speed, even when it's raining (even police do this).
    2. Motorists that are invited to pass closely on narrow rural roads where cyclists are riding near or on the fog line (e.g, I've been close passed by police officers before I knew better than to ride near the road edge).
    3. Motorists (even police) that cross a solid yellow in order to pass cyclists.


    That list of behavior is usual, typical and most certainly should be expected. Illegal though it is, it is normal. If you don't expect it, and ride accordingly, then you should not be riding your bike on roads.

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,283
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ghettocruiser
    Reports these supposedly *rare* hit-from-behind accidents just keep coming. Of the 4 fatal accidents I have heard of in Ontario this year, 3 have been of this type.
    Some time ago, I expressed my safety reservations about cycling in traffic with children in a trailer. There were tons of responses from parents who pull their children in trailers, claiming that these types of accidents are extremely rare/never happen. Sounds like wishful thinking to me.

    In the over-all universe of cycling accidents, these rear-enders are a small percentage of the overall total. As we are now seeing, that doesn't mean that they "never happen."

  18. #18
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Blue Order, did anyone ever say any particular type of crash never happens? Who? Where?

  19. #19
    Senior Member JumboRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    667
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I don't think this thread will work if it is used as an a forum to air old arguments. It would probably be beneficial if we simply post analysis and counter analysis here and move to another topic to argue the merits of the analysis.

    Failing to do this will make the thread useless as an opportunity to learn from the previous accidents.

  20. #20
    The Site Administrator: Currently at home recovering from a couple of strokes,please contact my assistnt admins for forum issues Tom Stormcrowe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    South Florida
    My Bikes
    Techna Wheelchair and a Sun EZ 3 Recumbent Trike
    Posts
    16,160
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by JumboRider
    I don't think this thread will work if it is used as an a forum to air old arguments. It would probably be beneficial if we simply post analysis and counter analysis here and move to another topic to argue the merits of the analysis.

    Failing to do this will make the thread useless as an opportunity to learn from the previous accidents.
    That's kind of the intent, yes......

    I'd suggest the format of Argument/Counterargument and conclusions. If you revisit the analysis later, please include the original post number or something so we all have something to easily reference back to, or link to the individual post you are referring to. This thread, to work is going to really require debate techniques and clear presentation to achieve the desired result.
    on light duty due to illness; please contact my assistants for forum issues. They are Siu Blue Wind, or CbadRider or the other 3 star folk. I am currently at home recovering from a couple of strokes. I am making good progress, happily.


    . “He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”- Fredrick Nietzsche

    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." - Immanuel Kant

  21. #21
    Former Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    dropmachine.com
    Posts
    4,061
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by joejack951
    Can you link to the accident reports from Ontario? I'm assuming these support your claim.
    Why?

    So we can re-enact this inane discussion?

    In case you don't want to bother re-reading it I will recap:

    I post examples from media outlets of bikes hit from behind, I state examples of accidents I've personally seen where cars were hit from behind, I give times I was nearly hit from behind on my bike and list the times I've been actually hit from behind in my car.

    You say there is not enough information in the media reports to conclude anything and discard all my personal experience as exaggerated and anecdotal, whereas you regard media pieces that support your claim as reliable journalism and all your own observations as irrefutable.

    Hence, you stick to a claim that goes well beyond counterintuitive and into the realm of, IMO, delusional. Either way it reaffirms that the way you currently ride is safest and every other method is riskier.

    Rinse and repeat.

  22. #22
    Senior Member John C. Ratliff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Beaverton, Oregon
    My Bikes
    Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet
    Posts
    1,910
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    Thanks John, I made a couple of minor updates in my post above.

    I don't know why you think I'm any more clear about what is fact and what is speculation now than I was in the deleted thread. I thought it was quite clear there too. Oh well, that's behind us now.


    I'm not an accident investigator and my purpose here is not to determine what actually happened. That would be entirely inappropriate (not to mention impossible).

    My purpose, as it always is on this forum with respect to these incidents, is to speculate about what is likely to have happened, to assume that IS what happened, and discuss what, if anything, the cyclist could or should have done to avoid the crash, assuming those speculations are facts. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand.


    Just because her behavior was in actual, real violation of Oregon statute, and she was cited for it, does not mean that behavior was not normal. Nor does accepting that that behavior is normal mean it is open season on bicyclists. That's ridiculous.

    By the way, when I say her behavior is normal, I mean "usual, typical, expected".

    Whether you like it or not, all of the following is usual, typical and expected (or at least it should be by the experienced cyclist):

    1. Motorists that speed, even when it's raining (even police do this).
    2. Motorists that are invited to pass closely on narrow rural roads where cyclists are riding near or on the fog line (e.g, I've been close passed by police officers before I knew better than to ride near the road edge).
    3. Motorists (even police) that cross a solid yellow in order to pass cyclists.


    That list of behavior is usual, typical and most certainly should be expected. Illegal though it is, it is normal. If you don't expect it, and ride accordingly, then you should not be riding your bike on roads.
    Maybe it is so hard to understand because, as a trained accident investigator, we never specucate about anything. We also do not assume anything, for the reason (the breakout of that word) stated above. Once you do that, you start going down a road that may be leading in the wrong direction. By the way, this is why the NTSB takes so long returning findings on an accident--they will not speculate at all. Every finding must be nailed down by factual evidence. Without that, the speculation could lead in the wrong direction, and produce justifications to causes which do not exist.

    It is apparent that you are interested in only the things that a cyclist can do, and not what effect the cyclist might have on the system to change behaviors of drivers. Your working theory says that all accidents are preventable by the cyclist, and mine says that is not true. This is the major disagreement that we have.

    Today, I rode that road, and stopped to take some photos (they are film, so they still need to be developed). I did note that the drivers were driving at around 35-45 mph, and not faster today. If this woman was driving as fast as the eyewitnesses say, then what I'm going to say next is not relavant. At 35-45 mph, looking back traffic could be seen about 22-25 seconds out (~500 yards). After that, the road jogs left (looking north) and disappears as it descends a slight hill. The roadway was 11 feet wide from centerline to fog line. There was evidence of the car being in the ditch beyond the intersection. There was no evidence of where exactly the accident occurred, or whether the skid marks I saw had any relavance to the accident (they were not long). Weather conditions today were overcast clouds, with a ceiling greater than 1000 feet. The weather conditions at the time of the accident may have been worse.

    John
    John Ratliff

  23. #23
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,026
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    To Tom, Donna and the rest of the moderators:

    this topic should so NOT be a 'sticky'.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  24. #24
    The Site Administrator: Currently at home recovering from a couple of strokes,please contact my assistnt admins for forum issues Tom Stormcrowe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    South Florida
    My Bikes
    Techna Wheelchair and a Sun EZ 3 Recumbent Trike
    Posts
    16,160
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist
    To Tom, Donna and the rest of the moderators:

    this topic should so NOT be a 'sticky'.
    Bek, this was created to give a venue for this type of analysis to keep it out of threads where family of the cyclists could search and accidentally find it. Hence the requirement for never mentioning the names of the cyclists here.

    Think about it....there have been several times where a family member has found the threads about their family member through a Google search, just here on BF. This way, since it's a foregone conclusion that there WILL be analysis, it's a normal human tendency, it can be done without traumatizing someone..... hopefully.
    on light duty due to illness; please contact my assistants for forum issues. They are Siu Blue Wind, or CbadRider or the other 3 star folk. I am currently at home recovering from a couple of strokes. I am making good progress, happily.


    . “He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”- Fredrick Nietzsche

    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." - Immanuel Kant

  25. #25
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John C. Ratliff
    Maybe it is so hard to understand because, as a trained accident investigator, we never specucate about anything. We also do not assume anything, for the reason (the breakout of that word) stated above. Once you do that, you start going down a road that may be leading in the wrong direction.
    You say "wrong direction". In order for a direction to be wrong, you must have a destination in mind, and the direction in question must not take you there. If your destination is "determine what actually happened", then certainly speculation and assumptions may take you in the "wrong direction". As I said earlier, "determine what actually happened" is not an appropriate or relevant topic for this forum. What is appropriate is to talk about what is more or less likely to have happened, and discuss how a cyclist might avoid such a crash IF those things are what happened.

    It is apparent that you are interested in only the things that a cyclist can do, and not what effect the cyclist might have on the system to change behaviors of drivers.
    Oh, really? I'm not interested in what effect the cyclist might have on the system to change behaviors of drivers? Where have you been? Of course I'm interested in that. It's just that you don't accept that cycling vehicularly, and advocating vehicular cycling, is the most effective means cyclists have to change behaviors of drivers. I also don't think that efforts to pass laws such as 3' minimum passing distance, or the current proposed law in Oregon, will have much if any positive effects with respect to how motorists treat cyclists, and are likely to do the opposite. Same with onstreet segregated bicycle facilities.

    Your working theory says that all accidents are preventable by the cyclist, and mine says that is not true. This is the major disagreement that we have.
    Are you capable of not exaggerating my position when restating it? If you could, it would go a long way towards us being able to have a rational discourse.

    Your statement is akin to accusing MADD of have a working theory "that all accidents are preventable if all drivers are sober", or Planned Parenthood of having a working theory "that all pregnancies are preventable with rubbers". It's disingenuous strawman creation. Never have I claimed that all accidents are preventable by the cyclist. So that most certainly is not the major disagreement that we have. In fact, we don't disagree about that at all, since we both recognize that some crashes like (Name deleted, HH, no names mentioned in this thread please, due to the previously mentioned concern for family members finding the analysis thread via Google-T.S) death, or the woman pulling the kid trailer) are certainly not preventable by the cyclist.
    Last edited by Tom Stormcrowe; 06-18-07 at 02:12 PM.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •