As far as "Accident", I don't object to the language. As, it carries the weight of an occurrence without intent to harm. One can read more into it if one wishes.
Originally Posted by
bakerjw
I am curious, what step did she miss? According to the article, she looked back 2 times.
Step or not, somehow she missed a big SUV bearing down on her. And, 50+ MPH or not, she should have been able to judge if she could get through her turn before the vehicle approached.
About 2 years ago, I had a near-death event on a 4 lane, 50+ MPH highway.
Left turn from shoulder across the highway.
Traffic was heavy enough that it was tough to find a hole to get all the way across. So, I saw an opening. A vehicle in the right lane, left lane clear. So, I attempted to move across to the left lane. Except, the dang car in the right lane must have seen my intent to turn, and rather than slowing slightly, simply moved into the left lane and blasted the horn, all at about 70 MPH.
I felt fortunate that I looked about THREE times.
Since then, I've avoided that section of the route, and generally cross that road at a traffic light about 5 miles to the East.
Originally Posted by
MoAlpha
A common and less deadly corollary is the idiot who tries to get around you 30' from a stop sign and ends up stopped next to you and half way in the other lane.
Oh, I had one a couple of days ago. I was at a stop sign doing a left turn. So, the car pulled up next to me and nearly slammed into a pickup turning in.
I think that is the bigger issue here. People view a cyclist as something that they must pass at all costs, and a 5 second delay to wait their turn is unacceptable.
In the incident in the article, the SUV had seen the cyclist, and attempted to pass her, going into the same place she was heading. Same as almost happened to me.
Originally Posted by From Article
a detail that subtly shifts blame, such as noting that the victim “was not wearing a helmet” or “was wearing dark clothing.” In the university group’s study, 48 percent of the examined stories included such a statement, which, without important context, suggested the victim was at least partly at fault. “Dark clothing is irrelevant if the driver is distracted,” says Goddard, “and a helmet will not save you if the driver hits you at 60 miles per hour.”
...
“I had a client who was hit at 9 a.m. in June, broad daylight, wearing normal street clothes,” says Hottman. “And the defense made the implication that it was his fault for not dressing in a bright and visible fashion.”
Obviously the helmet won't save everyone every time. But, one can at least attempt to reduce the likelihood of mortality. Forensics can help determine if the accident was survivable or not... such as truck rear tires, not survivable.
As far as bright clothing. Yes and no. Every little bit helps. And, it is something that we can do as cyclists to improve our chances just a little.
The British have a good term for it:
SMIDSY Accident "Sorry Mate, I Didn't See You".
Maximize one's visibility... still there is the sorry, I just didn't care accidents, but be seen early, and perhaps give the driver that extra second to process one's existence and how to react.