fordfasterr

That should have been the proper heading, not "Group of bicycle riders collide with a vehicle, one severely injured".

The bikers did not collide with anything, the car ran into them.

Here is the full story:

fordfasterr

Channel 4 covers it a little better and has a better title:

https://cbs4.com/topstories/local_story_240180313.html


According to the driver, cars were blocking the bike lane... but from the areal coverage, there are cars all along the "bike lane" .....

wethepeople

What makes him a cager?

AdamJaz

Woah, there's a CSC racer on that group!! :-P

wethepeople

How do you know!?!?!?! the car could have spontaneously rolled onto it's side to get a belly rub from the hand of god, because god likes SUV's, and the cyclists just so happened to be there.

CommuterRun

The cyclists ran into the car after the inattentive cager violated their ROW. Being in the BL would not have helped anything, even if other cagers hadn't blocked it by parking there. I'm glad the injuries weren't more serious, and the police are looking at liability against the owners of the parked vehicles.

fordfasterr

the vid states that one of the cyclists was under the car / arm stuck under a tire ,etc ...

Gromit

The comments in the Miami Herald are just amazing

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/brea...ry/218260.html

Either way you look at this, the driver pulled out into the street without looking.

John E

I concur, based on my reading of the account.

Again, I concur.

I am confused. If "being in the bike lane would not have helped anything," why are the owners of the parked vehicles liable, unless the few nearest to the intersection approach obstructed the errant motorist's visibility, thereby contributing to the incident? If that is indeed the case, then by all means slap them with contributory negligence. Otherwise, regular enforcement and awarding of fines for illegal parking should suffice.

ryanspeer

Apparently, the simple fact that he was in a car - something I'm sure the OP has never ever been guilty of or ever will be guilty of. It's uses such as that of the term "cager" that re-enforce in my mind just how ridiculous the use of that pathetic little term really is by those who use it.

Back on-topic though, that really is too bad about the cyclists. I hope they all recover and the driver has the book thrown at him in court - should it ever come to that.

genec

Actually the term "cager" is somewhat derogatory, usually invoked based on some idiot move, attitude or display by the "motorist" in question... in this case, the failure to yield to a peloton of cyclists who apparently had ROW and should have been quite visible by the size of the group.

CommuterRun

Maybe I can clear this up. The feeling that being in the bike lane would not have helped anything in this situation is mine alone, and has no bearing in law other than the cyclists being correct in occuping the motor vehicle lane since the bike lane was blocked.

The cagers illegally parking in the bike lane and blocking it is a matter for local law enforcement. The news article stated that law enforcement would be investigating for liability. If the owners of the vehicles can be slapped with some kind of legal repercussion for blocking the bike lane, it would be a very good thing.

On the other thing; cager can be a derogatory term, or it can be rather innocuous, as in anybody in a vehicle with a front, back, sides and a roof, as if they were in a cage. That's how I feel when driving. As if I'm in a cage. The way I have used it so far on this thread, it is meant to be derogatory. In the past, you may have also seen me use the term Moron Cager as a first and last name.

Another thing that crosses my mind is; how did the cager pull out in front of 12 cyclists? He most likely didn't. Likely he pulled out in front of one, or two if they were riding side by side, and those one or two were rear-ended by those following. As such, it is possible, no matter how unlikely, that the following cyclists could be charged with everything that applies when one driver rear-ends another. Likely a lot of the injuries were not caused by intial impact with the car, but subsequent impact from the rear.

This wreck is a good example of how each bicycle is a vehicle unto itself, a group of bicycles is not a single vehicle, and how riding in a pace line can be a dangerous and irresponsible practice. If I were that cager, I would go after the cyclists for damages from this angle.

PatD

I have actually lost a case like this. I was speeding and a fellow cager pulled right out into my path. I later learned she was being honked at, so she just floored it without looking and I ran right into her. Anyway, it was deemed to be my fault due to the speed. I also thought there was something about ROW involved-like the incoming vehicle had ROW once into the road, (ie, you can't just slam into a car in your lane and say you had the ROW).

Blue Order

It's an interesting issue. Were the cyclists riding over the speed limit? At 30 MPH, it's doubtful. On the other hand, were the cyclists riding in observance of the basic speed law-- not going too fast for conditions? Were the cyclists negligently riding too close together? Were the cyclists "racing" in violation of the law? Were the cyclists keeping a proper lookout?

ChezJfrey

Exactly.

And how did this auto suddenly dart into the cyclists' path? Did it, "come out of nowhere?" Oh, the irony.

flargle

Gas pedal.

The fact that there were dents all along the car, and not just near the front or back, hints that the driver did dart into the street from behind the row of parked cars. I see drivers do it all the time.

Helmet Head

STOP SPECULATING.

(obviously, these speculative questions are excellent and appropriate - my point was sarcastic, referencing all the flak I regularly get for speculating, including from Blue Order)

Roughstuff

"The group of riders were 'unable to stop?' This is similar to the thread (now in VC) about the 11 riders in Miami. The driver of the car was negligent and those riders in the front are fully entitled to legal redress. For those 'unable to stop' (that is, riding too fast for conditions) my sympathy is far more limited.

roughstuff

alanbikehouston

The article at "Floridatoday.com" describes the "bikes run into a car" incident" as occuring in an urban neighborhood. IF (and only IF) FTC is correctly describing the facts, the behavior of the cyclists was outrageous, and they have no one to blame except themselves.

A group of up to 40 cyclists are racing through the neighborhood in a pack through the neighborhood at speeds of up to 30 mph to 35 mph. According to FTC, the driver was pulling out of an apartment driveway, and the bikes ran into his car. Neighbors said that the view from the driveway might have been blocked by parked cars on the street where the apartment driveway is located.

When I ride near apartment houses, I know what I'm going to see coming into or across the street: kids, toys, moms pushing strollers, grannies on walkers, and vehicles entering and exiting driveways. And, on a street with parked cars, I know the kid, mom or grannie is most likely to pop out from behind that parked car just as I ride by.

So, the combination of residential neighborhood, apartments, and park cars means I need to ride at about 10 mph or 15 mph. At that speed, I can watch what is going on, spot the ball that rolled into the street, and know that a kid will be following that ball, and adjust according, even if that kid is just ten or fifteen feet in front of me.

At 30 mph, even if the "lead" bike had seen the car leaving the driveway, he was unlikely to be able to stop or avoid the car. And, the guys who where riding in 10th, 20th, 30th, and 40th positions probably never saw the car at all. When the first bike went down, the second bike plowed into him, and so on, and so on.

If there is something dumber than riding in a pack of 40 guys going 30 mph through an urban neighborhood, I don't think I've heard of it. Who knows how accurate the press reports actually are? But, if the press is reporting the facts correctly, these cyclists were cruisin' for a bruisin'.

flargle

Do you feel the same way about a person driving a car at 30mph?

Roughstuff

I don't, nor should I. A car has all kinds of devices to protect the driver from harm at this speed and in this situation. A bicycle does not. That is one reason why I see cyclists as secondary road users.

roughstuff

tallard

Indeed, that's how it seems. Alternately, had that bike lane never existed there, cyclists and motorists would have had more experience dealing with each other, and possibly the accident would not have happened.

Alternately, that little Asian guy might also not have seen an oncoming motorist, he should be counting his lucky stars that he was hit by hundreds of pounds of flesh instead of thousands of pounds of metal!!

I would like to see follow up on the legal issues: It seems appropriate that he was ticketed for "failing to give ROW" that is the proper and legal thing to do. However in one of the news segments, it was mentioned that the condo residents were advised by the condo association to park their cars on the cycle lane. The condo association claimed to have correspondence with the city to that effect. That could be interesting, as the city allowing that would be liable for the injured cyclists AND for the damages incurred by the motorist. If the city allowed the illegal parking then the cyclists and the motorist should sue the city. If the condo association can't prove their point then they are liable for telling residents to park illegally for the cyclists injuries/damages and the motorists damages and the association should be sued.

alanbikehouston

Cars going 30 mph? Depends on the neighborhood and driving conditions. But, if 40 cars were coming through my neighborhood, each one with his front bumper six inches behind the rear bumper of the car in front, riding in a "pack", I DO know what I would do...I buy the biggest box of roofing nails I could find, and give them a nice present.

ONE bike at 30 mph through a neighborhood with driveways, kids playing, parked cars, and other risks has a moderate level of risk to the cyclist, and to the kid or old lady he runs over. But, a pack of 40 riders multiples the risk by far more than 40 times, because (as happened here), when the lead rider screws up, 39 riders are going to being piling on top of him.

The ultimate test will be what a Florida jury thinks. My bet: a Florida jury, if the facts are what FTC has printed are true, will not give any of these cyclists a single dime.

A cyclist has two choices: ride like an arrogant jerk with the IQ of a turkey, , and hope a jury will feel sorry for you when you plow into a motor vehicle. Or, ride like an intelligent, thoughtful person, who cares deeply about the safety and well-being of the people who live in the neighborhoods we are riding though...never have a collision and never worry about what a jury thinks.

tallard

I agree 100% with the first aspect of your post, the second point leaves me questioning. I can see your point. If tailgaiting for cars is illegal, then tailgaiting for cyclists is also illegal and irresponsible. If that is our stance, then most group rides are behaving illegally because by definition, most group rides keep relatively close together, just as jogging/walking groups do.

I guess that's why personally, I've always loathed group events other than in the context of racing. It was my survival instincts kicking in, without me even noticing it... Hmm, I think you're right to an extent.

Howeber, we must be cautious to compare the situation to motorists to determine which cyclists to vouch for and which cyclists to leave hanging dry.

Let us compare this situation for a group of cars. Compare a group of cars tailgating at the posted speed limit to a group of cars NOT TAILGATING at the posted speed limit, how many cars would have crashed in either situation**********?? and how many could have veered clear. And how many feet away from the collision was the first vehicle able to veer clear??

tallard

I am partially in agreement with you. However, I think the speed limit is not the issue. At any given posted speed limit, bicycles are more maneuverable than a car. However if you view this situation in the tailgating perspective, then it would be hard to find anyone to argue with it.

The issue of tailgating among cyclists doesn't often get spoken about, but it is a practice best kept for experienced riders in racing contexts.

Tailgaiting cyclists, at any speed, are inviting trouble.