Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety
Reload this Page >

Another Peloton clobbered by pickup truck, in AZ. 2 dead so far.

Notices
Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

Another Peloton clobbered by pickup truck, in AZ. 2 dead so far.

Old 03-01-23, 12:03 AM
  #126  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,501

Bikes: Sekine 1979 ten speed racer

Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1481 Post(s)
Liked 639 Times in 437 Posts
Originally Posted by JoeyBike
I wonder what the Vegas odds would be on motorists "smartening up" anytime soon.
I'm guessing you don't think they need to?
Daniel4 is offline  
Old 03-01-23, 12:48 AM
  #127  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Rochelle, NY
Posts: 38,960

Bikes: too many bikes from 1967 10s (5x2)Frejus to a Sumitomo Ti/Chorus aluminum 10s (10x2), plus one non-susp mtn bike I use as my commuter

Mentioned: 141 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5912 Post(s)
Liked 2,781 Times in 1,553 Posts
Originally Posted by Daniel4
I'm guessing you don't think they need to?
Or that they don't think they need to.
__________________
FB
Chain-L site

An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.

Just because I'm tired of arguing, doesn't mean you're right.

“One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN

WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.
FBinNY is offline  
Old 03-01-23, 01:03 AM
  #128  
Senior Member
 
CliffordK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 27,548
Mentioned: 217 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18427 Post(s)
Liked 4,545 Times in 3,377 Posts
Oregon has a legal classification of "Vulnerable Road Users".

https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_801.608

Pedestrians, Horseback riders, Cyclists, Tractors, Skateboards, Highway Workers, etc.

Ok, so that seems to be a definition without a lot of additional legal discussion of the whole group of users. Yet, I think they treat different users differently. There is a Vulnerable user of a public way note with respect to careless driving and injuries or deaths.

https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_811.135

Now, the Oregon laws do specifically discuss passing bicycles.

https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_811.065

It is somewhat complex. But one should pass:

The driver of a motor vehicle may only pass a person operating a bicycle by driving to the left of the bicycle at a safe distance and returning to the lane of travel once the motor vehicle is safely clear of the overtaken bicycle. For the purposes of this paragraph, a “safe distance” means a distance that is sufficient to prevent contact with the person operating the bicycle if the person were to fall into the driver’s lane of traffic.

At a speed not greater than 35 miles per hour (I think when passing in a shared lane).

It is unique to bicycles, but some of the same issues come up with construction workers, police officers, flaggers, first responders, etc.
CliffordK is offline  
Likes For CliffordK:
Old 03-01-23, 01:44 AM
  #129  
Senior Member
 
Troul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Mich
Posts: 7,524

Bikes: RSO E-tire dropper fixie brifter

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked 3,090 Times in 1,972 Posts
Originally Posted by CliffordK
Crumpling is supposed to reduce collision forces. Does the F250/F350 use aluminum body panels, or just the F150?

That actually looks like much less damage than the Kalamazoo bike wreck, and the impact on a much older pickup.

Human bodies and vehicles aren't supposed to occupy the same space at a high speed differential.
Kalamazoo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalamazoo_bicycle_crash

In Kalamazoo, Charles Pickett Jr. was sentenced to 40 to 75 years in prison which will likely be the rest of his life.
2017+ the F series received aluminum paneling.
__________________
-Oh Hey!
Troul is offline  
Old 03-01-23, 06:06 AM
  #130  
For The Fun of It
 
Paul Barnard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Louisissippi Coast
Posts: 5,853

Bikes: Lynskey GR300, Lynskey Backroad, Litespeed T6, Lynskey MT29, Burley Duet

Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2137 Post(s)
Liked 1,650 Times in 831 Posts
Originally Posted by CliffordK
I was going to ask if that had been confirmed. But apparently it has been.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/...ident-97504853



https://www.12news.com/article/news/...e-fc5ca4020b86



One's vehicle is riding on the Jersey Barrier, and a group of bicyclists is looming ahead, and I'd think the response should be to mash the brake pedal through the floor, not just letting off on the gas. Also some extreme steering. The bridge was wide, and the two lane wide center median should have been clear.

He likely has had that steering issue in the past, many times to have a response of letting off on the gas.

It looks to me that he hit many of the cyclists on the right side of the vehicle, and on the right mirror. So primarily hitting them after he had gotten off of the jersey barrier.

The cyclists may have had a second or so to react when they should have heard the noise behind them, but there would have been no place to hide.

Some Twitter photos... mostly the same we've seen before.

https://twitter.com/BiancaBuono/stat...37137597124609

That drifting to the right and slow braking response sounds to me more like falling asleep, or perhaps distracted driving rather than a mechanical failure with an alert driver.

With all of that new information, how should we blame the cyclists for lane position and group formation?
Paul Barnard is online now  
Old 03-01-23, 06:38 AM
  #131  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Rochelle, NY
Posts: 38,960

Bikes: too many bikes from 1967 10s (5x2)Frejus to a Sumitomo Ti/Chorus aluminum 10s (10x2), plus one non-susp mtn bike I use as my commuter

Mentioned: 141 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5912 Post(s)
Liked 2,781 Times in 1,553 Posts
Originally Posted by Paul Barnard
With all of that new information, how should we blame the cyclists for lane position and group formation?
The only difference between a group ride like this and solo or single file riders is that when accidents happen they involve bigger numbers.

Essentially the normal statistical probablies are now clumped vs. spread out over time or geography.

Plane crashes make news while vastly more people are killed in cars but its rarely newsworthy.
__________________
FB
Chain-L site

An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.

Just because I'm tired of arguing, doesn't mean you're right.

“One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN

WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.
FBinNY is offline  
Old 03-01-23, 07:54 AM
  #132  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 30,009

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,562 Times in 1,060 Posts
Originally Posted by FBinNY
Sorry, I don't consider you as my editor. I believe my position is crystal clear to anyone reading the words themselves. I suspect that you're the only one seeing shadows, so I'll stand on my post as it is/was.

OTOH- if some other person here on BF has a question about what I mean, I'll clarify.

BTW- I believe that it would be much more constructive if/when you had something constructive to add, you simply posted that, rather than micro-parsing the posts of others. Of course, that's just me, so feel free to do as you will.
I'll make it clear. "Bicycling safety advocates" who post about a legal, moral or safety related requirement (or need for a requirement) for motorists to always slow down while passing cyclists, (or in the absence of a law should always slow down) regardless of lane separation or lateral distance separating the vehicle from the bicyclists, are substituting wishful thinking about bicycling safety for reality.

Bicyclists who expect only slow passes whenever riding on the road and get surprised or perturbed when it doesn't occur are raising the likelihood of a very unpleasant ride for themselves.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 03-01-23, 08:08 AM
  #133  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Rochelle, NY
Posts: 38,960

Bikes: too many bikes from 1967 10s (5x2)Frejus to a Sumitomo Ti/Chorus aluminum 10s (10x2), plus one non-susp mtn bike I use as my commuter

Mentioned: 141 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5912 Post(s)
Liked 2,781 Times in 1,553 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
I'll make it clear. "Bicycling safety advocates" who post about a legal, moral or safety related requirement (or need for a requirement) for motorists to always slow down while passing cyclists, (or in the absence of a law should always slow down) regardless of lane separation or lateral distance separating the vehicle from the bicyclists, are substituting wishful thinking about bicycling safety for reality.

Bicyclists who expect only slow passes whenever riding on the road and get

surprised or perturbed when it doesn't occur are raising the likelihood of a very unpleasant ride for themselves.
More of your typical strawman BS. It doesn't relate in any way to anything I posted.

I suggest you reread post 111 which was simply a suggestion for guidance in response to your request.

I don't know what you're finding so troubling, and being as clear as I can possibly be ------ I don't care

This is a forum. People post their opinions. If you have different one, post that. Readers are then free to read the various opinions and draw their own conclusions.

Last edited by FBinNY; 03-01-23 at 08:24 AM.
FBinNY is offline  
Old 03-01-23, 08:25 AM
  #134  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 4,083
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2333 Post(s)
Liked 2,097 Times in 1,314 Posts
There is no new information. The cause of the crash is still unknown. The driver did not intentional hit them. He claims a steering malfunction (doubtful on the latest Ford trucks). Even if the cyclist were not following the law WRT formation and there is no evidence of that, the crash would not their fault and is still a terrible, horrific tragedy.

What is the real tragedy is the failure to learn from these crashes, partly due to the snarky, antagonistic peanut gallery who think they know everything and any opinion divergent from their gets pounced upon

Someone in this thread wrote

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.
That is not true.

A high percentage of crashes are on secondary roads outside of cities (30-40% depending on definition and what report you read) and the vast majority are rear crashes (front of vehicle striking the cyclists from the rear). Every single cyclist that I know who was hit or killed was exactly like that, from behind on fast roads well outside cities in the country. The risk of death from the rear should not be minimized.

​​​​​​​Most fatal and serious injury bicyclist crashes occur at non-intersection locations.
https://highways.dot.gov/safety/prov.../bicycle-lanes

Arizona's motorist-cyclist fatality statistics are not very good, three times worse than NJ. NJ is the most densely populated state and our roads are old and lousy. I am sure we have some bridges where riding is allowed but none within my cycling range in NJ. We have to walk on the walkway. I hate having to walk understand the law. That Az bridge is a death trap. When I ride and a vehicle is approaching from the rear, I observe my mirror. Twice in my life I have had to ride into the ditch because the motorist obviously did not see me and would have killed me otherwise. That evasive maneuver is not possible on a bridge where you are like a sitting duck. Sure, you might have the legal authority in your state to be there. But in heavy traffic on a four lane bridge, why take the chance. Walk. Just my opinion. Flame away, I don't care.
GhostRider62 is offline  
Old 03-01-23, 10:44 AM
  #135  
Senior Member
 
CliffordK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 27,548
Mentioned: 217 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18427 Post(s)
Liked 4,545 Times in 3,377 Posts
Much of the road has curbs. So, not quite the same as a Jersey Barrier, but still one can't just head for the ditch.

That bridge needs better access to the sidewalks from the road. It doesn't appear to have a lot of pedestrians. And the sidewalk would have been the one safe place from an accident like the above one.

The riverbed appeared dry, and would be a great place for a path that would be good most of the year. Or, perhaps "gravel" riding.
CliffordK is offline  
Old 03-01-23, 11:10 AM
  #136  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 30,009

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,562 Times in 1,060 Posts
Originally Posted by FBinNY
More of your typical strawman BS. It doesn't relate in any way to anything I posted.

I suggest you reread post 111 which was simply a suggestion for guidance in response to your request.
Strawman? You are not the only poster on this thread.

I suggest you reread posts 101 and 102 where the alleged requirement for motorist to always slow down and pass slowly was raised. I'll make it easy for you:

Originally Posted by 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.
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
If the passing motorist is in an adjacent lane and giving the cyclists adequate clearance WHY should he remember to slow down to pass, make the pass slowly and make the pass take longer, and be in the passing lane that much longer?
You chose to answer while the other poster ignores the question and chooses to remain silent on the subject.

Last edited by I-Like-To-Bike; 03-01-23 at 11:15 AM.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 03-01-23, 11:29 AM
  #137  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 30,009

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,562 Times in 1,060 Posts
Originally Posted by GhostRider62
When I ride and a vehicle is approaching from the rear, I observe my mirror. Twice in my life I have had to ride into the ditch because the motorist obviously did not see me and would have killed me otherwise.
The value of a mirror cannot be over-estimated for situational awareness of vehicles approaching from the rear, especially on high speed and non-urban roads.

It doesn't offer any protection from collisions that are a result of at least one of the vehicles (bicycle or motor vehicle) suddenly swerving while passing (or being passed) for whatever reason into the adjacent lane (or across a minimum 3-4 foot lateral separation distance) and sideswiping or being struck by another vehicle(s).
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Likes For I-Like-To-Bike:
Old 03-01-23, 11:31 AM
  #138  
Senior Member
 
CliffordK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 27,548
Mentioned: 217 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18427 Post(s)
Liked 4,545 Times in 3,377 Posts
You know, when driving, if visibility is good, and the passing lane is clear I don't really think about slowing down when approaching a cyclist. Also for urban bike paths I like to move as far left as possible when passing a bike, but still go with the flow of traffic.

If visibility is compromised, I like to slow down some just in case I can't execute the pass and would need to pull in and follow the cyclist until the road is clear.
CliffordK is offline  
Old 03-01-23, 11:44 AM
  #139  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Rochelle, NY
Posts: 38,960

Bikes: too many bikes from 1967 10s (5x2)Frejus to a Sumitomo Ti/Chorus aluminum 10s (10x2), plus one non-susp mtn bike I use as my commuter

Mentioned: 141 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5912 Post(s)
Liked 2,781 Times in 1,553 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
Strawman? You are not the only poster on this thread.

I suggest you reread posts 101 and 102 where the alleged requirement for motorist to always slow down and pass slowly was raised. I'll make it easy for you:





You chose to answer while the other poster ignores the question and chooses to remain silent on the subject.
Yes, and my answer was clearly different, so I've no interest in debating or defending what other people say.
__________________
FB
Chain-L site

An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.

Just because I'm tired of arguing, doesn't mean you're right.

“One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN

WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.
FBinNY is offline  
Old 03-01-23, 11:45 AM
  #140  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 30,009

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,562 Times in 1,060 Posts
Originally Posted by CliffordK
You know, when driving, if visibility is good, and the passing lane is clear I don't really think about slowing down when approaching a cyclist. Also for urban bike paths I like to move as far left as possible when passing a bike, but still go with the flow of traffic.

If visibility is compromised, I like to slow down some just in case I can't execute the pass and would need to pull in and follow the cyclist until the road is clear.
Reads like the normal and proper way to drive a vehicle and safely pass slower vehicles, including single and group cyclists.

Slowing down for no obvious reason, especially in a high(er) speed passing lane and disrupting the flow of traffic is likely to lead to results similar to the effect of phantom braking in traffic.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Likes For I-Like-To-Bike:
Old 03-01-23, 11:57 AM
  #141  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 4,083
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2333 Post(s)
Liked 2,097 Times in 1,314 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
The value of a mirror cannot be over-estimated for situational awareness of vehicles approaching from the rear, especially on high speed and non-urban roads.

It doesn't offer any protection from collisions that are a result of at least one of the vehicles (bicycle or motor vehicle) suddenly swerving while passing (or being passed) for whatever reason into the adjacent lane (or across a minimum 3-4 foot lateral separation distance) and sideswiping or being struck by another vehicle(s).
I failed to mention the Varia, it also helps a lot on my upright compared to on my recumbent where it is not as helpful.

I am still not 100% clear on this crash in Goodyear. How did the defendant hit the jersey barrier? He either fell asleep or got the so-called "Death Wobble" and given he was towing a loaded trailer, it might have jackknifed or even if it was loaded improperly. He might have been really hauling ass to not be able to stop. The length of the debris field says sleep to me.
GhostRider62 is offline  
Old 03-01-23, 11:59 AM
  #142  
Senior Member
 
UniChris's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Northampton, MA
Posts: 1,909

Bikes: 36" Unicycle, winter knock-around hybrid bike

Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 930 Post(s)
Liked 393 Times in 282 Posts
Originally Posted by CliffordK
That bridge needs better access to the sidewalks from the road. It doesn't appear to have a lot of pedestrians. And the sidewalk would have been the one safe place from an accident like the above one.
For a single cyclist just trying to get somewhere, sure.

But watch the videos of this group's typical rides - no way they could use a sidewalk, apart from some very brief out-of-character way to get around a particular small obstacle on the way out of town to the point where the actual "ride" can begin.

It's pretty clear they chose this route as part of their recurring Saturday morning metric century because its width, great visibility and extremely sparse Saturday morning traffic are a good match for a large, fast road ride.

To a large extent, the bridge is actually the best part of that stretch rather than being a chokepoint, since the median is paved and drivers can be seen taking advantage of that to give extra space.

The riverbed appeared dry, and would be a great place for a path that would be good most of the year. Or, perhaps "gravel" riding.
Many of them may ride gravel too - but this was their traditional road ride.

Last edited by UniChris; 03-01-23 at 12:11 PM.
UniChris is offline  
Likes For UniChris:
Old 03-01-23, 12:06 PM
  #143  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 4,083
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2333 Post(s)
Liked 2,097 Times in 1,314 Posts
They should have been on the walkway. There are videos online of that exact bridge with cyclists riding it.

No blame, this is what I would do. Period. Too many drivers texting, eating, watching videos. Get a lifted truck and look down at other drivers, you would be amazed what you would see. Of course, cyclists have the right to ride on the road.
GhostRider62 is offline  
Old 03-01-23, 12:06 PM
  #144  
Senior Member
 
himespau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 13,482
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4263 Post(s)
Liked 2,980 Times in 1,832 Posts
The idea that a pack of fast moving cyclists should take a sidewalk when they have the right to the road and are forbidden from riding on a sidewalk seems...misguided. Likewise that a pack of roadies should decide to go offroad through a riverbed that is sometimes dry instead of a paved and legally accessible bridge? Were they supposed to know that this one time there was going to be a negligent driver on the road who might kill them? Or are they supposed to do this every time on all bridges just in case? Why are you blaming the cyclists for making the legal and rational choice that has worked for them every other time that they've done it?
himespau is offline  
Likes For himespau:
Old 03-01-23, 12:20 PM
  #145  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 1,851

Bikes: 1996 Trek 970 ZX Single Track 2x11

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 624 Post(s)
Liked 579 Times in 440 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
Sure helps, whatever else can be said.

You never know what might occur, during a pass (whether the occupant of that lane is a truck, ambulance/fire, car, bicycle or whatever). High overtaking speeds result in erasure of much of the safety margin a passer might otherwise have, if (for whatever reason) there is some impediment in the road, a maneuver needs to be made, or another occupant of a neighboring lane ends up swerving. No telling what might happen if one can't see clearly ahead, whether in a curve, or coming passed a large vehicle that blocks the sight lines, or approaching a mass of cyclists occupying a lane, or what.

Decades ago, the driving instructor I had always drilled into our heads warnings about not knowing for certain what's about to come down, when approaching or closely passing others. Particularly with respect to speed differentials. We've got laws for, say, safety/fire/emergency vehicles and construction crews on a roadway, with respect to other travelers are supposed to behave near them. While there might not be laws related to the average passing of a slower-moving vehicle or lane occupant, it's hard to avoid seeing the potential risk of such a situation, just based on overtaking speed differentials.

On a bike, I always appreciate drivers of vehicles who don't blow by me at 50mph on the marked-35mph roadway I often take.

In a vehicle, I always try to appreciate the situation's risks, sight lines and overtaking speeds, and their attendant risks. Particularly when passing others who aren't wrapped in 4000 lbs of steel, I suspect most do appreciate not being passed rapidly, however closely one might be passing.

IMO, it's general courtesy to respect the simple idea that others have an equal right to be on a roadway ... even if traveling more slowly, even if not wrapped in 4000 lbs of steel, etc. In some cases, the traffic laws also dictate what's required. But general safety and risk mitigation does, at least so far as I'm concerned, justify a modicum of self-restraint in such passing situations. Whichever side of the equation (the "giving" or "receiving" end) one happens to be.

And, too, not every road's characteristics are similar to what others imagine "typical" roads are. If the roads a person drives or rides on are all healthy, wide and easily managed by vehicles of all sizes and speeds, that's great. Many roads, perhaps most, simply aren't that way. Zero shoulder, crud on the road, poor sight lines, poor lighting (ie, dappled shadow/sunlight), whatever. The one road nearest me is like that. Fairly narrow, zero shoulder, ditches, often branches in the road, lots of side roads for entry/egress (often without looking), involving no end to the risks a cyclist can face going along that road. Plenty of people choose to drive at 50+ mph on that thing. Cyclists be damned. Slower-moving (35mph) vehicles be damned. Good way to mow someone down or run into a tree on the other side of the ditch.

Always worth considering, when overtaking another. Might well involve one or more of these risk elements, which some of us contend with daily on some of the roads near where we live. Situations in which most would be safer and better-served if people would stow it for a moment and drive/pass more safely along such routes.

From the article:
Hogen said Dollar was talking about raising awareness and safety for cyclists just days before he was killed. “It’s everybody playing a part in doing their best as seeing everybody as a human. That it is more than a bike. It’s a life that you’re affecting,” he said.

He said riders should also take safety precautions when hitting the roads, but everyone should practice patience and respect to prevent more lives from being lost.
Yup.
Clyde1820 is offline  
Likes For Clyde1820:
Old 03-01-23, 12:32 PM
  #146  
Banned.
 
Drillium Dude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: PAZ
Posts: 12,294
Mentioned: 256 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2588 Post(s)
Liked 4,827 Times in 1,709 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike

"Emergency vehicles"? Irrelevant and unclear, why bring it up except to muddy your answer.
Come on, now - common sense dictates maintaining a safe separation from any vehicle off to the side of any roadway - especially where speeds exceed 40mph - because the stopped vehicle(s) are vulnerable. That same vulnerability applies to a single, or group of cyclists.

You seem more predisposed to to arguing semantics than adding constructively to the discussion in this particular tragedy. Please, don't read anything between the lines in my post - the key words are common and sense, and there's no muddy water there.

DD
Drillium Dude is offline  
Likes For Drillium Dude:
Old 03-01-23, 12:52 PM
  #147  
Cantilever believer
 
RCMoeur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2021
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,649
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 564 Post(s)
Liked 1,943 Times in 874 Posts
Originally Posted by GhostRider62
That is not true.

A high percentage of crashes are on secondary roads outside of cities (30-40% depending on definition and what report you read) and the vast majority are rear crashes (front of vehicle striking the cyclists from the rear). Every single cyclist that I know who was hit or killed was exactly like that, from behind on fast roads well outside cities in the country. The risk of death from the rear should not be minimized.
https://highways.dot.gov/safety/prov.../bicycle-lanes

(remaining commentary snipped)
My previous comment was based on earlier bicyclist crash studies published by FHWA.

That page seems to rely on a study in TRR 2673 on bike crashes in certain areas. I've requested a copy of that study for review, as the notably different findings than earlier studies warrant a closer look. I'm acquainted with the authors.
__________________
Richard C. Moeur, PE - Phoenix AZ, USA
https://www.richardcmoeur.com/bikestuf.html
RCMoeur is offline  
Old 03-01-23, 01:09 PM
  #148  
Tragically Ignorant
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM

Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,099 Times in 5,054 Posts
Originally Posted by Paul Barnard
Is trolling considered civil?

The entire nature of these threads where people speculate wildly then start arguing for their speculation over corpses is uncivil.

Sorry, but this is as bad a desecration as letting random people picked up on the street perform autopsies.
livedarklions is offline  
Likes For livedarklions:
Old 03-01-23, 02:10 PM
  #149  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 30,009

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,562 Times in 1,060 Posts
Originally Posted by Drillium Dude
Come on, now - common sense dictates maintaining a safe separation from any vehicle off to the side of any roadway - especially where speeds exceed 40mph - because the stopped vehicle(s) are vulnerable. That same vulnerability applies to a single, or group of cyclists.

You seem more predisposed to to arguing semantics than adding constructively to the discussion in this particular tragedy. Please, don't read anything between the lines in my post - the key words are common and sense, and there's no muddy water there.

DD
The difference in meaning between slowing down (speed) when passing, and maintaining minimum safe distance (lateral space) when passing is NOT semantic. Two separate issues. No one suggested that maintaining a minimum safe distance is not necessary for safe passing, that was a given.
I read that you are discussing maintaining a safe distance; the issue and questionable suggestion was that drivers should always slow down and proceed slowly whenever passing cyclists regardless of lateral distance, raised back on post 101 and which prompted someone else to discuss laws regarding passing stopped emergency vehicles.

Probably few drivers on the highway share your version of "common sense" and slow down in passing lanes when there is no requirement or safety benefit provided, and there is the raised probability for initiating a rear end collision from other drivers who don't have the "common sense" to anticipate a driver in front of them with the rare "common sense" to unexpectedly slow down while passing.

My common sense indicates that cyclists who feel uncomfortably vulnerable whenever traffic speed exceeds 40 mph, even when it is in another traffic lane; should take up cycling where there is no traffic at all.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 03-01-23, 02:24 PM
  #150  
Banned.
 
Drillium Dude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: PAZ
Posts: 12,294
Mentioned: 256 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2588 Post(s)
Liked 4,827 Times in 1,709 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike

The difference in meaning between slowing down (speed) when passing, and maintaining minimum safe distance (lateral space) when passing is NOT semantic. Two separate issues. No one suggested that maintaining a minimum safe distance is not necessary for safe passing, that was a given.
I read that you are discussing maintaining a safe distance; the issue and questionable suggestion was that drivers should always slow down and proceed slowly whenever passing cyclists regardless of lateral distance, raised back on post 101 and which prompted someone else to discuss laws regarding passing stopped emergency vehicles.

Probably few drivers on the highway share your version of "common sense" and slow down in passing lanes when there is no requirement or safety benefit provided, and there is the raised probability for initiating a rear end collision from other drivers who don't have the "common sense" to anticipate a driver in front of them with the rare "common sense" to unexpectedly slow down while passing.

My common sense indicates that cyclists who feel uncomfortably vulnerable whenever traffic speed exceeds 40 mph, even when it is in another traffic lane; should take up cycling where there is no traffic at all.
Slowing is also common sense. As for the rest: TL/DR.

DD
Drillium Dude is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.