BarracksSi

What people are failing to remember is simple:

If you can't see their eyeballs, they have no chance of seeing you.

I've nearly been run off the road a couple times by a truck. I was in the same place, just off the front right wheel... and I was in a CAR. The driver simply did not see me. I could barely see into the truck cab's windows myself, never mind being able to see the actual driver.

It's an old lesson: Stay out of blind spots.

Helmet Head

Well said.

RobertHurst

In this particular case on that particular corner I would say that the victim could easily have been an old lady crossing the street or someone pushing a stroller, and I'm sure the commentary from kruger would have been different. Are Portland truck drivers conditioned to expect that pedestrians might be in the crosswalk?

Robert

BarracksSi

Well, a pedestrian in the crosswalk might've had a better shot, actually. They would have probably been there well before the truck arrived, so the driver would've seen them ahead of time. They would also be a few feet farther away, making them more likely to be seen over the engine.

Bikepacker67

Bike lanes are dangerous at intersections for the same reason that sidewalks are dangerous at intersections.
I'd much rather be in the center of a lane at an intersection.... it's where the drivers' eyes are.

I ride a few BL's here in Penticton, but I never forget that the magic white line is the illusion of safety.

RobertHurst

On that particular corner, a ped or group of peds could have popped out of the establishment that opens directly onto the corner while the truck was at the light, or come down the sidewalk of the intersecting street, and could easily have started walking across the street without the driver seeing them. A kid could be standing on that corner and certainly be just as hard to see from the cab of a truck as Tracey Sparling supposedly was. I'll add that, while it certainly seems likely that she was in the 'blind spot', in fact we don't know for sure if that is true and we don't know if this driver even looked that direction before turning.

I'm not ready to blame anyone for this horrible tragedy and you won't hear me clamor for criminal charges against this driver[1]. But clearly, in the parlance of the day, 'mistakes were made,' all around.

Operating a vehicle like that in a crowded and tight downtown area like Portland is of course a serious responsibility. The slightest oversight on the driver's part can mean death to pedestrians or cyclists; the slightest oversight on the part of pedestrians or cyclists sharing the street will end in tragedy if the driver's not incredibly careful, all the time. Of course those peds and cyclists do lots of idiotic things so the driver has to account for them as well as himself, all the time. So the driver gets it from both ends, but that's just the way it is. He is not the one who will be killed if something goes wrong. The fact that this guy ran over somebody is pretty clear indication to me that he wasn't at that time proceeding with due diligence required of that operating environment, which is crawling with bicyclists and pedestrians, and where he should frankly not have been surprised by the possibility of a novice cyclist or pedestrian moving into his blindspot at that corner. But achieving that level of vigilance consistently is far easier said than done, and everybody makes mistakes. That last sentence is as good a description of traffic as any other I've heard.

Regardless, downtown Portland's bike lanes do not help matters and should probably be removed en masse. There I said it.

Robert

[1] It will be interesting to see if they cite him for violating Portland's bike lane law, which he clearly did, or what twisted rationale they come up with to avoid doing so.

randya

Kruger's attitude and history is full of pro-motorist/anti-cyclist sentiment; but I agree that's another story and not the main point here.

I think part of the point is that there should be additional choices, between criminal homicide and a traffic ticket (which hasn't been issued yet, AFAIK...). manslaughter, negligent driving, something...



the other thing is that I agree with everyone who says destination positioning is important, but the city's response to all of this is to reinforce the bike-lane-to-the-right concept.

the whole thing is complicated by the fact that the intersection in question has been modified to accomodate a freeway on-ramp which IMO is a contributing factor.

BarracksSi

So he's to be busted for turning across a bike lane that, for all he could know and see, was unoccupied? Do you think that a CDL driver actually wants to cause an accident? Their careers depend on clean driving -- a typical office worker doesn't have that responsibility.

Better than bike-lane-to-the-left, I guess. Besides, they're doing what the cyclists seem to want them to do, and that's to put bike lanes everywhere.

Shouldn't peds & cyclists realize that it leads to a freeway on-ramp and modify their behavior accordingly?

(there I go, quoting line-by-line... I hate it when people do that...)

Once again, for some unknown reason, the cyclist is being made into a faultless martyr who was run down by a big bad truck while the corrupt establishment stands by and laughs.

Cyclists make mistakes too, ya know.

Fear&Trembling

Blind-spots from a HGV/truck perspective.

https://www.movingtargetzine.com/arti...ed-by-a-driver

LittleBigMan

Unless you count this incident.

I can't speak for anywhere else, but here in Atlanta, right-turning motor traffic is required by law to yield to cyclists in the bike lane. Even if there is no specific law regarding yielding right-of-way like this, a professional driver who does not know to check the bike lane in his mirror before turning right needs to go back to driving school (and that's being kind.)

John E

As one who spends as much time walking or jogging as cycling, I have to be on guard constantly against being right-hooked. I do not enter an intersection without first making eye contact with any right-turning motorist who is close enough to be a threat. If I am walking or jogging in the same direction as traffic flow and there is a bike lane to the left of a right-turn-only lane, I sometimes launch my intersection crossing from there instead of the curb, specifically to avoid being right-hooked. ("Vehicular jogging," anyone? )

LittleBigMan

John E, of course I agree with you on that. But if pedestrians and cyclists are supposed to be careful (after all, it's drummed into us almost from birth--"look out for cars,") so much more so should drivers exercise extreme caution. Unfortunately, drivers are often subjected to stiffer penalties for not having a current tag than they are for unsafe driving habits.

dynodonn 

Argeed, I just went and reviewed what the penalty would be on my SUV for being a month late, and it happens to be almost 100 US dollars, our state's upcoming penalty for the first infraction of not using a handsfree cell phone while driving is going to be 20 US dollars.

Helmet Head

This is Robert Hurst at his best, though I wish you would incorporate the implications of that bolded sentence, which applies just as much to bicyclists as it does to truck drivers or any other human, into your book more. That is, because everybody makes mistakes, relying on vigilance alone is not only far easier said than done, but it is impossible.

That means we have to rely on something other than vigilance too, and this is what is so hard for you to accept. Even though you implicitly admit above that "achieving that level of vigilance" is not possible, you have no problem advocating reliance on vigilance. Yet your arguments against relying on anything else, particularly operating in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road and the safe and legal behavior of others, is that these approaches are not reliable. Well, of course, taken alone, none of these approaches is enough. But when you put them all together, I think you're about as safe as one can reasonably be. In particular:

1. Achieve as high a level of vigilance by establishing and maintaining situational awareness all around you as best as you reasonably can.
2. Know and follow the rules of the road.
3. Know and follow cycling best practices (like not stopping or passing on the right, particularly at a place where they can and might turn right).
4. Predict the actions of others based on assuming that they will probably, but not necessarily, do what is legal and common for someone to do in their situation. Look for indications about whether they will or will not do what you expect before you put your life in a situation that assumes they will behave as you predict.

I believe those are the four key cornerstones of traffic cycling safety. Forester nails (2) and most of (3). He hardly touches (1). You nail (1), though I think you don't give enough emphasis to rearward situational awareness. You put more emphasis on the dangers of relying too much on (2) and (3) than on their value, and thus, I believe, discounting the need to do so. Both you and Forester address (4), but not nearly as completely as I would like to see.

I'm saying this now because I've never noticed you make a statement before that puts vigilance in a light that makes it as vulnerable to reliance as the approaches that Forester emphasizes.

Following the rules alone is not enough, and vigilance alone is not enough. But put them together (i.e, 1, 2, 3 + 4 above), and it's about as reliable as it can be. Yes?

DogBoy

I may legally have the right of way, but when I see a cement truck, a panel truck or anything else with really poor visibility, I keep a VERY close eye on it, and will yield if it looks like its going to cross my path.

This to me looks like an accident. I don't fault the driver. I don't think the cyclist did anything legally wrong, but had she been a bit more careful, I think she'd be alive today. That sounds very cold, but it is true. I feel for her family, but I don't think charging the driver is the right move.

Navy_Chief

Maybe you need a refresher, she positioned herself by his right front tire... climb into the cab of a cement truck in the drivers seat and tell me how well you can see right next to the right front tire.. (you can't see there at all) so maybe we need to stop blaming the drivers in every incident and accept the fact that cyclists make bad decisions, and sometimes they have bad out comes. It sucks but it is reality.

Chief

genec

But the fact is a blind spot is just that... a spot. A moving vehicle offers the driver the opportunity to survey a large section of the road as they approach a desired intersection... if the driver is doing their job, they should observe and assess any situation ahead that may cause conflict on their way to their desired destination.

To not observe a cyclist as the driver passes the cyclist is indicative of the motorist simply not paying attention.

Now if the cyclist, on the other hand, tries to come up from behind and pass, that is clearly the responsibility of the cyclist.

syn0n

The way it sounds to me, there is no way he would've seen her, whether he was looking or not. If you've ever rode in a large truck cab, you'll realize that the drivers have significant blindspots, and even if looking carfefully, a bicyclist can easily be in one of them. I've recently seen a whole bunch of commercials here directed at motorists on the freeway advising them where the blindspots on semi trucks are, and to basically stay out of them if they don't want to get smashed by a semi. As was mentioned earlier, it's possible for a the driver of a big rig like this to look and not see a whole car. Cyclist who come up in blindspots don't stand a chance.

I hate the idea of bike lanes being to the right of turn lanes. The solution as as easy as paint and a sign - here the bike lanes cross over the right turn lanes, and they have signs telling drivers to yeild to cyclists. I think these would pretty much eliminate the problem. Bike lanes create a false sense of security, and it is really stupid to be filtering people alongside right-turning vehicles.

Crack Monkey

Why are bike lanes designed to put cyclists and drivers in such unworkable situations? Why can't the bike lane end as it approaches the intersection, and force the cyclist to merge into stopped traffic? Or, mark a "danger" zone on the bike lane, so cyclists are aware that cars might right-hook them.

Motorcyclists are taught to be wary of cagers at all times. It seems sensible that cyclists should follow that example. Screw what the law says or doesn't say and take responsibility for your own well-being.

mandovoodoo

Back to criminal liability.

Is a bike lane a traffic lane equal to a normal traffic lane under the law?

If so, then in the absence of other specific laws, the truck driver should be liable for crossing an adjacent lane without ensuring it was clear.

If not, then what is the legal status of a bike lane?

That's an interesting question. Bike lanes have always caused me more trouble. I move into the car lane to pass an open door or go around a delivery truck parked in it. Get yelled at for not staying in the lane. Reach intersections and have to dodge right hooks, like the incident covered here. And so on.

A motorist or cyclist needs to know the legal status of those lines to properly react to people using cycles. I don't know the legal status of them here in TN. Fortunately, our far-seeing city fathers have no budget for interfering with cyclists and other road users. But I do go places where there are shared and segregated facilities for cycles.

yes

I don't care to speculate about this driver's guilt or innocence. However, the people that are excusing the driver are claiming that there is no way to see what is immediately to the right of the truck. If that is the case:
Cement trucks most probably cost north of $100,000.
A mirror costs $10. to $100 depending on how much of a surcharge someone puts on it. A video camera could be sourced in bulk for similar cost. It seems pretty odd to me that the law does not require a mirror to see all around the truck. If you really can't see what is in the lane to the right by your tire, you need another mirror.

genec

Helmet Head

Perhaps. And this is what civil law is to determine. If the victim's defense can show that there is reasonable way to do this, and juries agree, then the huge civil penalties truck companies will have to pay will cause them to get the mirrors or whatever they need to do this.

I was once on a jury for a case where woman slipped in a bath tub and injured herself. Part of her case was to argue that the tile in the bathroom was slippery when wet. But this was shown to be tile that is typically used in all hotels. Still, we had the option to find that there are reasonable and much safer alternatives, and, despite the fact that other hotels did not do that, this hotel should have. If a few hotels lose cases like that, then that will bring about change.

But the case has to be good, good enough to at least convince a relatively objective jury, not just certainly non-objective cycling advocates.

Helmet Head

That's true. Motorcyclists have gotten way beyond blaming their crashes on the stupid behavior of motorists, and have learned to not only accept it, but expect it, and act accordingly. Most bicyclists and bike advocates, who continue to seek change in the behavior of motorists in order to make cycling safe, have a long way to go in this respect. Robert Hurst and most messengers have figured it out, but, judging by most of the commentary on this forum, few of his fans have caught on.

yes

Not only is there a reasonable way to do this, but that way is also obvious.
That is how our system usually works. However, legislatures can also get involved if they see fit.

MSF course teaches to know and accept the danger and act accordingly. Don't pretend that most people on a motorcycle and the MSF consequently absolve drivers of responsibility. That is just silly.