Leisesturm

The pick-up driver is in a difficult situation, no doubt. He has to explain a disastrous outcome. We don't have to buy it (his explanation) wholesale! I may have missed the post that wondered if the driver were being entirely truthful about how much impairment the sun caused, or if he simply failed to judge how much speed reduction and/or evasive maneuver would have allowed the cyclist to survive. It looks for all the world like there was a bit of center area between the north and south (or east/west) lanes, and moving left around the cyclist need not have meant a fatal head on with oncoming traffic. I wouldn't expect him to dive into the ditch at speed. He would almost certainly have rolled over. We are working way too hard trying to make sense out of what we have been presented. Either he could see or he couldn't. I think he could see.

That said, I would much rather be in any kind of motor vehicle than on a bicycle when the sun is rising or setting. I haven't been in the vehicle yet where, with proper adjustment of the flip-down visor, you couldn't restore forward vision such that you don't have to kill anyone. The same isn't true on a bicycle. Cyclists and drivers alike search high and low for the perfect sunglasses that will deal with low angle sun. There ain't none! But visors work! Drivers should use them! Bicycles ain't got none. Helmet visors ride too high to get the really low angle sun, and about the only thing that works is a hand over your eyes and that means taking a hand off the bars when you may need it for more pressing purposes. Nope. I'm sorry, I'm simply not buying that drivers story. I get why he came up with it. What else does he have? But, again, WE don't have to buy it. In any other First World Country that driver would never legally get behind the wheel of another vehicle again. In America where even the cyclists are mainly drivers, all accidents look like the cyclists fault, or nobody's fault. Just ... stuff. You know, tragic and all that. Yeah, right.