genec

Well logic falls by the wayside when Drivers rule.

The 85 percentile rule makes no sense either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit

The 85 percentile rule favors motorists and no other road users. And it is based on the comfort of the road users... so put them in cars with climate control and road noise quieting insulation, power steering and power brakes, and lo and behold, they drive faster. Go figure.

Wogster

The 85th percentile makes perfect sense on limited access highways, where other road users are not expected. It also makes sense only with excellent drivers and cars in perfect mechanical condition. Few drivers are excellent, and the mechanical condition of most cars is far from perfect as well.

randya

this is actually correct practice for making a left turn in heavy traffic as I was taught in drivers ed. you pull into the intersection and wait for the light to turn and complete your turn after the oncoming traffic has stopped for the light.

Tragic if the cop blew a stale yellow light and failed to legally stop for the red, at a minimum he should have been displaying his emergency lights if his intent wasn't to legally stop for the red light.

Clarks

It would be interesting to know if this was his first accident with a vulnerable road user.

CB HI

The latest updates list the speed limit as 45 mph.

But a comment in one of the other post said they saw the cop going very fast (which implies speeding).

Is this intersection actually near the crest of a hill, which may have made it hard for the cyclist to see the cop coming?

genec

The intersection is right at the crest of a hill, and tonight as I drove this route home, going southbound, the same direction as the cop, I realized I could only see the traffic light, and nothing below it, until I was parallel to the gas station that the cyclist was said to have ridden from.

When the traffic is light in the area, NO ONE drives below 45 MPH... 50 MPH + is typical. (I always come off like a "jerk" to some, for driving at or below the speed limit... but then I drive my sight line )

Flat out, if you were speeding up that hill (say answering a call and glancing at your in-car monitor) you would not see a cyclist that was moving to make a left turn, until the last second. A cyclist may have looked down hill and not seen any on coming traffic... and would have assumed they were safe, but may have been "surprised" by traffic that suddenly accelerated in response to a call.

The impact that crushed the car window and off of the light bar indicates a pretty severe hit.

"Driving at speed limit..." I really doubt it. No one else does.

sd_mike

Having dealt with SDPD a few times before in varying ways, I'd wonder if they even bothered to look for the cyclist. My commute passes their HQ, rarely do they look when pulling out into 14th St. Had one pull out, not in cruiser, I yelled for them to STOP as I don't have a horn. They tried to "intimidate" me by basically being arrogant, like I'm not supposed to be there. I've also been ticketed by them for riding LEGALLY in the roadway, at the speed limit. Screw them, I still ride the same way. Still legal, still safe. I just rarely seem them show respect for those they are supposed to "serve and protect". They should be leading by example. Sad.

genec

And the ultimate conclusion... "the cyclist swerved."

https://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...go-police-car/

SAN DIEGO — San Diego Police say the death of a 63-year-old bicyclist who collided with a police patrol car Monday morning was an accident, prompted by the bicyclist’s abrupt left turn into the path of the car.

“It was an unfortunate accident,” said traffic Detective Dan Wall.

Authorities have not identified the bicyclist but said he is from San Diego and was an avid biker on a routine morning ride through University City.

Authorities said the bicyclist turned out of a gas station parking lot and headed south in the bike lane of Genesee Avenue at about 7:15 a.m. Then, police say, he crossed a lane and collided with the patrol car, about 40 feet north of the intersection at Governor Drive.

The patrol car, which was responding to another accident, was traveling under the speed limit of 45 mph, Wall said.

The officer works patrol for the Northern Division and has been with the police department for 18 months. His name will be released tomorrow, police said. He has been placed on paid administrative leave until the investigation is complete, which is routine.

Police say the officer did not have his lights and sirens on. He was not injured in the collision.

Debris was scattered about in the busy intersection and the windshield of the patrol car was caved in and shattered on the right side. One of the patrol car’s lights was also broken in the crash.

The man had been riding a white bike and was wearing a red helmet and vest with reflective patches. The helmet came off in the collision. He died at the scene.

genec

Actually the cyclist was identified in the print version of this report.

He was Walter Nichols Freeman, he was known as an avid cyclist.

Digital_Cowboy

There is an intersection not too far from my house with a left turn only lane. With an induction coil to activate the left turn arrow. Which is either green or yellow, allowing traffic to make a left if there is no traffic in the other lane. If get to that intersection when it's not red I will "take charge of the intersection" and wait for the light change to complete my left hand turn.

So far knock on wood I haven't had many problems with impatient motorists at that intersection.

genec

It doesn't look like the cop blew a stale yellow as the collision seems to have occurred about 40 feet short of the actual intersection.

The current thinking is that both cop and cyclist were traveling in the same direction. So this is an "overtaking" event.

The resulting damage to the windshield and light bar are what I am wondering about... if the cyclist was moving forward and the cop was moving forward at "less than the speed limit," the resulting vector would be less than 40MPH...

Anybody know what it takes to smash in a car window like that?

randya

the bike itself looks remarkably undamaged, frame and both wheels seem to be intact, maybe top tube bent in front of seat tube?

the weight of the cyclist may have been a factor in the amount of damage to the police car.

do you know if the hit was inline or broadside?

remsav

Sounds like inline... although not sure if this happened at the "bike lane-right lane" or he was merging for a left turn lane "right lane 2 left lane". No mention if the LEO braked or if there was a video surveillance... maybe they do with the comment about bicylist coming out of the gas station.

CB HI

Intesting how they completed their investiongation in the same day and determined it was the cyclist fault. But in cases like Officer Council, it takes weeks to figure out what happened.

genec

It may be due to witnesses available. That is a very busy intersection with 4 gas stations and lots of commuter traffic, as well as 2 schools nearby.

I believe in the Council case only the cyclists saw what actually happened, as the officer was asleep at the time.

The thing that still bothers me about this situation is why would the cyclist have put himself right in the way of an approaching police cruiser... who didn't see whom?

I still wonder about the speed of the cruiser.

Mos6502

After reading the articles, I'm still not sure what they are talking about.

I don't even know if they were traveling the same direction or in opposite directions.

At first I thought he was making a left turn, and got hit by the cop going straight coming the other direction.

But now it sounds like they cyclist was heading to, or in the left turn lane and was rear ended by the police car.

genec

Apparently the cyclist may have been heading to a left turn only lane, but was crossing the street perpendicular to the flow of traffic. The collision happened 40 feet or so short of the actual intersection.

tadawdy

Since moving to Chicago, I've started being defensive even with a green light. Most of the time, 2 or 3 cars speed through a red. It's kind of considered common practice (especially when turning), and I don't think people are ticketed for it often enough.

Don't want to bash cops. There are good ones and bad ones, just like anywhere else. Some of them are also bad drivers.

John E

I have seen nothing to contradict the following scenario: An experienced southbound bicyclist trying to get to the left turn lane was struck by a motorist in the #1 southbound lane. Contributing factors were limited sight lines and high speeds. The VCs can flame away at me, but this is why I am so fond of two-part, instead of vehicular, left turns on prime arterial roads.

genec

That is the same way I see it John. I wonder if the police investigators see it another way... they insist the driver was driving below the speed limit.

As a regular commuter on Genesee, I generally avoid vehicular left turns and usually do the two point turn when I need to turn left. Same thing on hilly curvy 50MPH Regents Road.

I actually have adjusted my route over the years to make right turns through neighborhoods, vice left turns across 2-3 lanes.

genec

BTW you can look at google maps, street view and see that the curvature of the road is such that you can't see anything about 120-150 ahead of you that might be at the crest of that hill.

A motorist traveling at 45MPH is moving at 66 feet per second. That means that ~2 seconds is all someone has from not seeing someone ahead to "oh my God!"

At 50MPH, that 2 seconds means you had so see someone in front of you 146 feet away... and not be distracted in anyway.

https://maps.google.com/maps?client=f...170.17,,0,9.88

In the link above, the view is about 400 feet away from the point of contact (note the 3rd tree in the street view and look at the map from the sat view above). Note that you can barely see the top of the gas station on the right. That roof is far taller than a cyclist on a bike. The cyclist is said to have come from that gas station. (more likely from the bike lane... but that is speculation)

Bear in mind also that these google street view images are taken from the top of a vehicle, NOT the driver's seat. So the sight line angle from the drivers' seat is even worse.

At 50MPH, a motorist would cover that 400 feet in 5.4 seconds. But you can only see about 2 seconds ahead.

sauerwald

If you look at the photos, the police car is in the far left lane - the lane from which you would make a left turn. His vehicle is turned to the right, implying that at the point of impact, the motor vehicle was turning to the right to avoid something on his left. The damage to the police vehicle is on the left side of the windshield - all of this seems to imply that the cyclist was in the left turn lane, not making an 'abrupt left turn' as the news reports seem to state. One of the photos that helps me in looking at it this way is the overhead shot Here. I think that the police car involved in the crash is the one towards the bottom of the frame, based on the location of the front wheels relative to the crosswalk lines in the intersection - which can be seen in the photo above the aerial shot.

noisebeam

D. The maximum speed provided in this section is reduced to the speed that is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and with regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing, including the following conditions:
1. Approaching and crossing an intersection or railroad crossing.
2. Approaching and going around a curve.
3. Approaching a hillcrest.
4. Traveling on a narrow or winding roadway.

sauerwald

Noisebeam - you silly misguided man. What is written in the law is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is how the law is enforced. The actual (enforced) speed law says that unless you are travelling significantly faster than the posted speed, you need to stay to the far right of the roadway and keep out of the way of real traffic. In this case, since the speed limit sign said '45', you would not be driving properly if you were going less than 50 or 55.

noisebeam

I purposely did not make a judgment, only provided a part of the law for consideration. I really don't know if it is relevant or not.