pj7

https://bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=232244

Two phrases in this post pop out at me.
One is that the cyclist was "hit from behind".
The other is that the driver yelled "get off the road".
And this happened in the "morning hours".
So here is a vague example of someone riding "on the road" in trilight and being "hit from behind".

Though the story doesn't say if the driver "didn't see" the cyclist or have any other details.

The bad thing to think about is that if the driver DID see the cyclist, he hit him on purpose??

RobertHurst

Yes, my girlfriend was hit while riding the lane on her way to work. Broke her back, lucky to be alive.

In addition I have seen a few incidents with my own eyes. I watched a cyclist riding in a through lane approaching an intersection in heavy traffic; a guy in the right turn lane behind him looked back and merged into the through lane, and hit the cyclist in the process. I also saw another guy riding the lane get hit squarely from behind. Turns out the driver had a few too many at lunch, hated cyclists, and did it on purpose.

Robert

I-Like-To-Bike

Ok maybe this can get through your rhetorical filters, maybe not. But then, so what, eh

I spotted an eighteen wheeler in my rear view mirror approaching me at the speed limit 55 mph who gave no indication of changing lane to pass or to take the right lane exit. When I was approximately where the front skid mark is pictured I bailed out towards the patch of concrete to my right between the road and the exit lane. A millisecond later the truck driver finally reacted to my previous presence in his path and slammed on his brakes. The skid marks are his his cab passed over where I would have been if i hadn't bailed. he ended up jackknifed in the medial strip. Broad daylight conditions.



Below is the view backwards from this spot which almost was the end for me.

One view with traffic, one without.



So tell me VC wizard; what are your words of wisdom?

sbhikes

That's because nobody can prove that the act of riding in the lane caused the motorist to hit the cyclist, but you've already decided that riding "in the margins" causes motorists to hit the cyclist. It's just another ploy to try to "prove" your "point".

I believe the reasons motorists hit cyclists are the same no matter where the cyclist may be on the road.

chipcom 

Chipcom Man say: for small fee I can teach telepathy skill to quazy white man who dance with big truck. Snake oil cost extra.

pj7

Actually, I believe that THAT point has been shown quite well in this thread. No matter where you ride, you still run the risk of an unwanted vehicular proctology exam if the dice land in that favor. And I was a victim of that in the worse way because the sun was up and I was on a rather large motorcycle with plenty of lighting.
I'm still trying to figure out what he meant by "unable to see" the cyclist as per my statements in a rather lengthy post towards the bottom of page 2 of this thread.
[edit] Post #45

deputyjones

Good point with the motorcycles here. We just don't have enough cyclists in MI for me to see many accidents, but every motorcycle crash I have ever been to has either been a single cyclist going way too fast or, more frequently, ended up with the driver of the car (or van, suv, etc.) saying, "I never even saw him."

pj7

As a police officer, what goes thru your mind when someone makes that statement after a traffic incident? "I never saw him"
I know the police aren't as stupid as TV shows make them out to be. If that were the case I'd have a clean record So I know you guys don't buy into it. Or are you bound to having to be partial when this happens?

deputyjones

It is irritating (sometimes infuriating actually), and you are still human. In the end it does not really matter from an enforcement stand point, typically, because you still write them the same ticket. I don't care if they saw them or not they are still getting the same charge and/or ticket (unless they are covering up an intentional act), but sometimes it is hard not to say, "Then what they h@#$ WERE you seeing!"

pj7

I guess my quick wit and arseholish attitude would add up to make me one unlikeable police officer then.
There is no way I could pass a chance to toss in a snide remark at a time like that.

OFF TOPIC EDIT
I think the OP has abandoned this thread because it obviously didn't turn out the way he wanted it to.

bragi

You know, I rarely, if ever, agree with HH, for all the usual reasons, but I have to say: getting hit from behind IS a matter of lane position. If you make yourself visible, motorists generally won't run you down, unless they're drunk, talking on a cell phone, suffering from sleep deprivation, applying makeup, reaching for their latte, suffering from a fit of road rage, or simply an idiot. Yes, you can get hit from behind, and in a nation of 300 million people, it's bound to happen. But statistically, it's not that common; you're much, much more likely to get killed in a variety of ways that do not involve passing cars. For that matter, you're probably about as likely to get killed while driving a car as you are while riding a bicycle. But if you assume a lane position that makes it easier for people to see you, you'll probably live longer than you would if you blended in with car doors at dusk. It doesn't assure your safety, of course -nothing does- but it does improve the odds significantly.

Helmet Head

When I write about gaps in same direction traffic, this is what I'm talking about:

deputyjones

Yeah, I don't completely disagree either. I think lane position can and does make you more visible. Also, I said before here there was something like 700 cyclists killed last year. 700 too many for sure, but statistically still pretty darn low.

pj7

I agree that being visable should be high on priorities. But the points I make are that drivers do hit cyclists from the rear, both in the lane and on the shoulder, and when they do it is because they are not paying atention to what is in front of them, in which case it wouldn't matter if you were 600lbs and setting off bottlerockets as you rode. After all, cars hit other cars on curvy open roads on a daily basis.

Helmet Head

Wrong on both counts.

My time is not infinite.

By the way, I never contended that cyclists are never hit from behind.
The fact that there are some incidents of cyclists getting hit from behind is not surprising, at least not to me.

deputyjones

So, what is the point then? I am not being sarcastic here (or at least not trying to be). Just wondering what the point of this thread is?

pj7

Actually it's just one count, cause and effect you know
So what's the deal then? Really. Are you writing a book or something and just need references? Because your post does seem like you have never heard of someone being hit from behind and were looking to make some sort of point about it.

Helmet Head

Again, my primary interest is to get a feel for the likelihood of a conspicuously lane-positioned cyclist getting hit from behind by a motorist who simply did not notice the cyclist directly in front of him in his path for a significant period of time.

In particular, I'm interested in what that likelihood is compared to the likelihood of getting accidentally drifted into when riding adjacent to a traffic lane in a shoulder or bike lane.

bragi

I agree with you that sometimes cyclists get hit from behind no matter what their road position; you get no argument from me there. I was merely trying to point out that taking a more assertive and visible position, closer to the center of the lane, is probably safer than not doing so (I say probably because I don't think accident statistics are accurate enough for us to determine exactly where most riders were when they got nailed). I kind of see lane position the way I see bike helmets: not a guarantee of total safety by any means, especially in the presence of a moron drivng a car unsafely, but much better than nothing at all.

pj7

Well, being a guy who has had someone hit me from behind who "did not see me", I'd much rather be sideswiped by someone passing me too close and/or drifting into the shoulder than to ever be hit from behind again. If my speed had been lower I'd likely have ended up under the tires of the car that hit my instead of sliding off the road.
As far as the "likelyhood" of it all. I'd say they are just the same, because both would most likely be caused by the motorist being inatentitive. And when an inatentitive motorist makes a mistake around you, it doesn't matter where you are, if the dice land on the wrong number, then yours is up.

why didn't you just ask this question to being with. It would have made things easier and this thread likely more productive.

pj7

I got your original point and can concure with it my friend. A more centerish lane position is probably safer. And any time I find myself in the lane I make sure to take full advantage of any skills I have developed. Be safe, be seen. But on winding, narrow country roads with a shoulder, I'll take that shoulder any day of the week. traffic is a different situation.

genec

How about the infamous case of the Dallas lawyer that chose to hit a cyclist with her car. That was in daylight, was from behind, and was in a narrow lane in a park setting. She stated she clearly saw the cyclist and "wanted to teach him a lesson." Does that count?

I was hit in a narrow lane, but it was not from behind, I was hit by the vehicle as the motorist chose to turn left behind me and crashed into my seat stays. Narrow residential street. Broad daylight. I was well destination positioned to go straight.

genec

Well now that we have that description... below are the gaps that tend to see.

Actually on Genesee and in Sorrento Valley, the speed limits are lower and the gaps are much narrower.

bragi

I would think that such a case would count as aggravated assault, if not assault with a deadly weapon. And, to be honest, if a driver did that to me, and I found out it was intentional, and no criminal charges were forthcoming, I would spare no expense, hire the best lawyer I could afford, and haul her into civil court. Additionally, in the case mentioned above, I would try to have this person barred from practicing law ever again, just for good measure.

I-Like-To-Bike

How do measure "likelihood" of anything without knowing the size of the population being measured? Or if your volunteer respondents are representative of the population at all?