Paul Barnard

Joey, I would like to say that I am disappointed to have to point out the obvious to you, but I have come to expect it. If these riders were indeed 3 abreast, then it didn't serve to make them visible enough to make a difference. But, hang in there with me. This was but one of 10s of millions of bike/car interactions that take place across this country. How many times has being a wider/larger object made a difference? Of course we cannot answer that question, but I'd venture a guess that being a larger object has contributed to preventing more crashes than it has been a contributing factor in. Given that the overwhelming majority of the time a motorist runs over a bicyclist, the driver says "I didn't see him," does it not stand to reason that with 2-3 times more surface area of visibility, riders 2-3 abreast would be more likely to get the attention of the motorist? Feel free to answer honestly and explain your answer. You know, since you're here for the good of those that come here to learn, explain to them how larger objects aren't more likely to be seen. Or don't answer. Or engage in deflection of some sort. I know what I am expecting out of you!

UniChris

Reports have the driver drifting from the left lane all the way through the right and into the barrier of the walkway.

Which could well mean that the cyclists' only relevant decision was heading out on the same club ride that's been happening for years.

We'll have to see what is eventually concluded, I have to wonder if the driver perhaps fell asleep and only woke up as he was rubbing the barrier.

gpsblake

There is the issue of the 8th amendment and manslaughter is not a charge where they hold you without bond. But $250,000 for the initial charges does seem to be on the low side.

That said, let's see where the investigation goes. If he was impaired in some way, the charges will probably be upgraded and the bail either raised to the millions or none at all.

It was also not a hit and run, which to me does indicate he isn't much of a flight risk.

JoeyBike

I'll answer in 2 parts.

1. I coined the phrase around here: "You can't be TOO seen". Bright colors, flags, flashing lights, whatever it takes. I stand by this.

2. Ever heard the term "Speed Differential"?

"The speed differential is defined as the difference between the free speed at a given location and the anticipated operating speed of a device proposed at that location..." -Link

Let me explain. Many highways, especially Interstate highways have MINIMUM speed limits. This is because there is the expectation of traveling motorists as to how fast other road users will be traveling. How do NASCAR drivers operate with inches between each other at 200+ mph and and not wreck every five seconds? "Speed Differential" is ZERO. The expectation that there won't be a cow, cyclist, or some jalopy school bus smoking along at 45mph ahead of them is 100% for sure. If we added a bunch of slow moving objects to the race course the danger would increase a hundred fold (if the drivers were not informed) albeit maybe a hundred fold more interesting. Imagine a huge yellow bus with flashing lights leaving the pit area at even 70mph right ahead of a NASCAR pack moving at 200 mph. Sure they would SEE the school bus - for a split second before running into the back of it.

For instance:

California Vehicle Code 22400 VC — the minimum speed law — prohibits drivers from slowing or stopping as to impede the normal flow of traffic. The section also disallows motorists from driving at a speed below an established minimum speed limit. -Link

^^Why? Because the higher the speed differential the more danger of a catastrophic collision. Is it because the motorists CAN'T SEE the bright yellow school bus up ahead doing 40mph in a 75 mph zone? Nope. It's because motorists have the EXPECTATION that everyone is traveling at roughly the same speed. And if traffic is all bunched up at 75 mph as it arrives at the rear of the slow bus, it's going to be a free-for-all trying to dodge each other as everyone tries to slow or change lanes - none of them professional drivers.

So to answer the second part of your question (finally) it really does not matter if the pack of riders is spread out ten abreast unless the ONE car on the highway has a clear view of them, and is AWAKE, sober, and looking at the road ahead. If there are multiple cars on the highway it is highly possible that ONLY the car up front sees the pack doing 20-30 mph in a 45 zone (where everyone is driving 55 most likely). Speed Differential is the killer. Unexpected slow moving objects (cyclists) with a large speed differential to approaching vehicles is always a recipe for disaster. By some miracle it doesn't happen every 5 seconds. There is never much margin for error and the cyclist's Lycra kit won't absorb much of the impact.

DangerousDanR

So, an out of control vehicle hits the barrier wall and then hits the cycling group. They may have been riding single file for all we know from this account. The good news is there will be a court case and there will be a presentation of evidence, or the driver of the pickup will accept a guilty plea with stipulated facts. Until then, speculation does no good what so ever.

https://www.npr.org/2023/02/27/11596...clists-suspect

RCMoeur 

In my initial assessment several days ago, I omitted mechanical failure as a possible cause. I was remiss in not including this possibility. I think a thorough forensic analysis can verify if this is the case in terms of this crash.

CliffordK

Ouch. I like how the bus driver saw the accident, and blocked the driver in. And, a second driver pulled up behind to lock the driver in place.

It is a little difficult to make out with the discontinuity of 4 or 5 cameras jumping between scenes, with cuts losing seconds between each jump.

Assuming the same 3 vehicles involved. The black car was 1 car back behind the bus. The black car made a move to the left lane.

Then we next see the bus in the left lane and the black car hitting the cyclist in the right lane.

Wow, that cyclist really was riding very far left in his lane.

So, the driver in the black car may have been impatient, trying to pass the bus. Then when the bus moved left, the car tried to slip back right (right lane to left lane, cut off by the bus, then back into right lane, and finally back into the left lane to flee the scene).

Note the silver car began right behind the bus, but was able to see the unfolding scene and ended up 100 yards back.

That bridge is also unique in that it has several lanes merging on the south end, and then splitting to several separate lanes on the north end, with two lanes crossing the river. So, it may have encouraged the driver to try to slip past the bus while on the bridge.

I think the rider positioning likely impacted the crash. And the cyclist may never have been fully visible to the driver of the black car. When the black car pulled left, the bicyclist still wasn't quite visible (or the driver wasn't paying attention). Then as the bus pulled left and the car pulled right, the cyclist wouldn't have been visible until the last moment. Furthermore, the cyclist could have been partly obscured by the shade of the bus.

So, if the cyclist had been to the right side of the lane, he would have been more visible to the driver in the black car as the vehicle crossed back right.

Basics of any driving course. One is supposed to leave some follow space when behind large trucks or buses so one can see the road ahead, and have more time to react.

Personally I often lane split when driving and passing stationary or slow objects. So I partly merge left, but never fully leave my primary lane, nor fully enter the passing lane. Thus, nobody is trying to cut to my right. But, that would depend on the position of the cyclist in the lane too.

I've also frequently stated that the reaction for evading a cyclist in the middle or left of the lane vs evading one the right (or on the shoulder) is more severe, and takes longer. There may not be a right answer for lane positioning, but one must know that a left lane position creates risks that a right lane position doesn't have.

RCMoeur 

As a traffic safety professional with 30+ years experience in operating marked vehicles with SAE warning light systems, wearing ANSI-compliant hi-vis apparel while working on highways, and remarkably bright lighting systems to front and rear and retroreflective sheeting on all my bicycles used at night, I can summarize my experience as "Conspicuity helps, but it's never a guarantee of safety."

This fundamentally misunderstands the relationship between minimum speed laws (ARS 28-704, CVC 22400) and the Basic Speed law (ARS 28-701.A, CVC 22350). It is true that crash rates are generally lowest on a roadway where a high percentage of vehicles are operating at close to the same speed. In fact, I've often stated the most useful finding from a speed study isn't the 85th percentile value, but the 10 mph pace containing the highest percentage of free-flow vehicles. All that being said, the minimum speed law never overrules the basic speed law - a driver is still responsible for not hitting anything unexpected in front of them, regardless of speed limit or travel speed, whether it's a stalled vehicle, small child, large rock, deceased livestock, or a cyclist or group of riders. And the minimum speed law does not absolve the driver of this obligation.

Even though Arizona has a minimum speed law on the books, Arizona DOT stopped signing minimum speeds on highways 30+ years ago, likely due to this driver expectation mismatch (and because a minimum speed has no credibility when everyone's in bumper-to-bumper traffic).

Using race car driving as an analogy is inappropriate. It's a controlled closed course. But even they have to react to sudden situations in front of them. And if your assertion that drivers are behaving as if they have an expectation of all other traffic traveling the same speed holds, then those drivers are accountable should they cause a crash due to that misjudgment.

There also seems to be a presumption that overtaking motor traffic is the primary threat to bicyclists. This is a very common belief and assumption. Thousands of years of evolutionary behavioral conditioning has left humans with an aversion to loud fast objects coming up behind them. But most motor-vehicle-bicycle crashes involving serious injury in urban and suburban areas instead involve motor vehicles or bicyclists pulling into the roadway or making a left or right turn. Overtaking crashes comprise a small percentage of of bike-MV crashes, and alas can have high severity. But actions perceived to reduce overtaking risk can increase the risk of more-common crashes which can also kill or maim.

RCMoeur 

Another way of looking at it is that a farther-left lane position sends a clearer message to overtaking traffic that a full lane change is needed to pass where there is insufficient room in the rightmost lane for a motor vehicle to pass in the same lane with legal minimum offset. And a farther-left position can be more conspicuous, especially on a curve.

One significant unmet research need is a thorough objective analysis of lane changing behavior vs. rider lateral position in non-wide lanes. There was an unpublished study in southern California from about 20 years ago where a lane position at center or slightly left on a multilane road with standard lanes and no shoulder / BL greatly reduced passes with less than (I think) 3 feet offset, as drivers made full lane changes. Conversely, riding near the right increased close passes, as drivers might think that they can use the remaining space in that lane to overtake and ignore minimum lawful offset. A study of this type with many more locations, data points, and clear controls, could help answer a lot of questions on overtaking behavior. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be a priority for research funding, and current research review committees in the US may be biased against such studies to the point where even a well-designed and executed analysis might not see publication.

DangerousDanR

I had a colleague who was killed while riding home from work when he was hit by an out of control car which had a mechanical failure. It does happen. This is why some of us are saying wait until the investigation is through.

GamblerGORD53

Finally, here's a video of the offending Ford F-250 truck, looks pretty new. Can't see anything but the front.
They said there were 20 riders and only 1 was not hit. So I doubt they were 3 wide.

CliffordK

Passing room is largely a factor of driver training.

Nonetheless, the metric I am most interested is accident rate, and mortality rate. And it is a very difficult metric to correlate with road position. There certainly is a confirmation bias of looking for things one considers dangerous.

CliffordK

Thanks,



Some significant front end damage. Also missing the right mirror. No sign of a large trailer, although a small trailer might be hidden behind. Not a dually.

The driver claims that he smoked marijuana 11 hours before the crash (night before?) Drug test pending to confirm.

Also claims the steering wheel locked up (but doesn't mention BRAKES).

BikeLite

Two quotes from the above NPR article...

""No one really saw the truck because he pretty much hit the back of the group and came all the way through the group," Herzog told NPR."

"The number of cyclists killed by drivers has been on the rise in recent years. The National Safety Council reported that 1,260 cyclists were killed in 2020, an increase of 16% over the previous year. Cycling deaths have also risen some 44% over the past decade."

Paul Barnard

I have provided you a pathway for greater focus and cogency in the future. That was a somewhat burdensome way to agree.

Paul Barnard

That looks like far more than 25 mph of speed differential. That impact took place after the barrier wall scrubbed off some speed.

GhostRider62

Go to 1:55 of your posted video. Typical outrageous and dangerous riding practice.

Since speculation is rampant and facts are not in evidence, notice this pickup is a Ford Super Duty. The operator claimed he could not steer the vehicle. That is very possible. This is a relatively common problem with that vintage of F250/350 Super Duty trucks. So-called death wobble is also very common on them, especially sudden movements when hauling or if a trailer tire blows. After market fixes are common to resolve Ford's design defect or at the minimum crappy design. I owned one of these and in the same color, I got rid of it.

https://www.iconvehicledynamics.com/...0this%20recall.

JW Fas

The Super Duty pictured is not vintage. It's a current generation model based on the headlight design. Current gen Super Duty trucks come standard with AdvanceTrac, Roll Stability Control, and Trailer Sway Control. Is it possible in the loosest definition of the word that all three of those features failed? Sure. Is it probable? No.

LesterOfPuppets

This has no bearing in this instance. They could have been single file or double file and we'd still have loss of life. They very well could have been single file or double file at the time. Your argument is not relevant.
Good, maybe they can sue FoMoCo after they sue the operator but I sure wouldn't want that tidbit to exonerate the operator in any way.

Drillium Dude

Marijuana is legal in 37 states as of 2022. Cell phone usage is at an all-time high. Is there a correlation to the referenced 16% increase? Common sense suggests it's highly likely.

It's possible his steering locked (as I also heard reported on this morning's news), but if he'd been on point, he'd have hit the brakes as soon as he realized he had a mechanical issue.

As far as towing a trailer being 'hard', as one poster put it: it's only hard if you don't make the effort to compensate for the extra length and understand how it will react to your inputs. Practice makes perfect - but for the love of god, don't do your practice in everyday traffic!

This kind of stuff could be avoided if people put the act of driving first and foremost - and stopped adding all the bells and whistles to that driving experience. But that'll never happen - we're too entitled these days, and seem to have a constant need to be entertained most every moment of the day.

DD

GhostRider62

How do you know, were you there? Were they taking the whole lane instead of single file in the shoulder? If they were riding single file, would that have mattered. You do not know and neither do I.

Look at the other video of the cyclist playing in traffic on the bridge in Bethlehem, Pa. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Idiotic to cross that way. In two videos posted here, cyclists are at fault in my view. We have no idea what caused the crash in Arizona. None. The driver said his steering locked up. This does happen on those trucks. I am sharing those facts to what I see are a bunch of close minded people. It is not a tidbit. You have already convicted motorist w/o any facts.

LesterOfPuppets

The vehicle failed to maintain a lane, struck the barrier separating the shoulder and the sidewalk. It is the driver's duty to maintain control of their vehicle. The driver has failed in his duty and as a result some lives were taken. I'm not sure what magical "cause" of the crash you're hoping for that would override the driver's duty to have a functioning vehicle which the driver can maintain control of at all times. The only question here is was it intentional or unintentional, either way the driver is responsible.

work4bike

This is a tricky issue with cyclists and rules of the road, which I don't have an answer. If a large group rides single file, it's much tougher to pass them vs a group just taking a whole lane and riding as many abreast as can fit in that lane.

I've never seen a law that requires a minimum group of cyclists (there may be a law, but I haven't really looked, since I don't ride in such large groups).

This group had 20-cyclists and if they were in single file, that's more than 120 ft line.



.

UniChris

When a vehicle not under effective driver control crosses the entire width of the roadway from the left lane to scrape a barrier off the right side, it makes not a bit of difference where you were riding - getting hit or not is down to random luck of if that full-width-sweeping diagonal did or did not intersect your forward / backwards position.

You're revealing yourself to be dangerously ignorant of the most fundamental basics of how to ride a bicycle in traffic.

The Fahy Memorial Bridge is a critical crossing which has signs reminding drivers of bicycle usage - in fact it has shared lane markings painted on the surface in the center of the right lane itself as well as the center of the only lane on those of its approach ramps which have but one.

And that's because it's long been known that if someone is going to ride there or in any other confined space that lacks width for in-lane passing, occupying a full lane is the only viable way to do it.

There is nowhere for a bicyclist to be that is out of the way of drivers - the only way it works is for the drivers to patiently wait and change lanes to pass them.

Daniel4

I would rather pass a pack of cyclists taking the lane than a tractor-trailor. You can't see past the tractor-trailor to judge when to go to the other side to pass. Much easier with a pack of cyclists. And since they are travelling so slowly, the pass will be faster.

As for a line of cyclists in a single file, one has to remember to do it slowly and then resume speed when you've passed the lead cyclist. I don't think a lot of drivers will do that.