markm109

Man Killed While Riding Bike In Roseville
Driver Does Not Appear To Be At Fault

A man who was crossing a busy Roseville roadway on his bicycle was hit by a car and killed Thursday night.

The 39-year-old was crossing Groesbeck, just north of 12 Mile Road, when he was hit at about 8 p.m., Local 4 reported. Police said the bicyclist was westbound and the vehicle was northbound when the crash occurred.

The 39-year-old man -- whose name was not released -- was later pronounced dead at St. John Macomb Hospital.

The driver does not appear to be at fault in the crash, the station reported. Police continue to investigate.

Police advise that bicyclists and pedestrians should use a crosswalk.

Dark Arrow

I know this is just a news clipping however it still strikes a nerve with me as it makes it seem like if the car driver was not at fault then the cyclists must be because he was not using a crosswalk. There needs to be more details. Was it a controlled intersection? Lights, signs? Did the cyclist blow a stop sign or light? Who had right of way? If the cyclist was in a car would the driver of the auto get a citation? Either way it's a sad story but there needs to be more details other than what directions each was travelling. From what is posted at least here in WI the cyclists was entering the intersection from the right of the car giving the cyclists right of way if both arrived at the same time (obvious from collision) and there were no other mitigating factors IE lights or right of way signs.

Chris

recursive

Do they mean that when coming to a corner, a cyclist should dismount and walk across the crosswalk with the pedestrians when the signal changes?? Then ride to the next corner and repeat??

Perhaps they'd prefer it if we just walked our bikes everywhere.

bikeforumlegs

Obviously someone dying in an accident is tragic, and I agree that this article does not at all explain what the full situation was, but I am inclined to believe that the car was not at fault if the Police say the car was not at fault.

I bike 60 miles a week commuting to work, and on average once a day I see a cyclist do something unsafe. I have started lurking this board for the very reason that I am aghast at the choices my fellow riders have made in terms of safety...

Once again, I am sad to hear about the accident.

Daily Commute

Maybe the cyclist was wrong, but the police are giving advice to cyclists that is dangerous and illegal. Cyclists belong in the road, not a crosswalk.

In any case, here's the link. Hopefully, they'll do a follow up.

AndrewP

When I walk across a street I feel safer crossing in the middle of the block rather than at the intersections where the crosswalks are. In the middle of the block you only have to look in 2 directions for approaching cars, while at the intersections you can be hit from any direction.

The article doesnt say if he was just crossing the street or travelling on a cross-street. Lack of lights on the bike may have been a factor. This is sad - too many people get killed by cars.

Chris L

True, but you can't expect much from the media generally these days. As Andrew P says below, crosswalks are the most dangerous place to cross any road, because signalised crossings don't seem to take into account all the approaches to the intersection. Personally, I'd rather rely on the ol' look both ways adage.

Pat

Crosswalks can indeed be hazardous because they almost always occur at intersections. Around here, when the crosswalk is green, motorists turning right and left are still permitted to come and get you. Given the long intervals between signals around here, the left turners always seem to think they have the right of way. Personally, I often feel safer jaywalking in the middle of the block because they can get at me from fewer directions.

closetbiker

Not only does the story not tell how it was that there was a collision, it gives dangerous and false information that will lead to more accidents.

Shouldn't we be using information learned from an accident to try to avoid further accidents instead of exploiting a fear for sales based on sensationalism?

eurotrash666

8pm... lots of accidents at dusk. lights are mandatory! i ride like a courier most of the time, but i make sure i am seen! it always hurts to see a bodybag next to a mangled bike.

H23

In some cities, nearly all cyclists are erratic and follow no rules at all. Sometimes ordinances are changed to allow cyclists to ride on the sidewalk. Legislators think they are doing underprivledged folks a favor by keeping the fuzz off of them for riding on the sidewalk.

But the side effects of this tolerance for erratic cycling are:

1) False sense of security for ped, cars and cyclists.
2) Road cyclists that try to act like normal vechicles receive "get offa th' road!" remarks.
3) More accidents.

Savant

Perhaps I can help put things into perspective here.

First off, it would appear that this accident didn't happen at an intersection, since the description puts it north of an intersection, and the area doesn't have many streets.

The bigger issue is that the cyclist was crossing a HIGHWAY. Yes folks, the story doesn't mention it, but that is Groesbeck Hwy in a suburb of Detroit. A total of SEVEN lanes, (three lanes in each direction plus a center left turn lane) but it's not a 'controlled access' freeway, it's just a big arterial road. This is a commercial/industrial district, not a residential zone. (although there is a residential area nearby) This is a very busy road, and the speed limit is at least 35mph. (might be higher, but it's been a long time since I've been in that neck of the woods)

I don't care who it is, I'd consider it risky crossing that road given the amount of traffic, let alone at dusk. As much as cars are responsible to obey the rules of the road, there are some situations where you just can't cross safely from the perpendicular unless at an intersection. I'll attach a picture of the intersection, the accident happened north of the intersection, most likely near the top of the pic.

Regards,

Savant

H23

Thanks, that really puts it into perspective.
Looks like the increasingly common ex-burbian nightmare road.

Allister

You can get satellite photos of Hell now? I'm glad I'm not even on the same continent as the contents of that photo.

Allister

You're new here, so I'll let this one slide. But for future reference, here in the Safety and Advocacy forum the general philosophy is that the driver is always at fault, and the police have a barely concealed vendetta against cyclists and will say it's the cyclist's fault, even if it isn't.

But seriously, the newspaper article is next to useless for forensic analysis, but as far as I can tell, that's not their point. All a news service does is say that a thing has happened, not how or why, nor is it's job to suggest solutions or offer condolences, or even point out the moral of the story (in the rare event that there is one). It is voyeurism, pure and simple. Only a very small percentage of the news could be considered necessary information, and most of that is in the weather report. The rest simply plays up to our perverted desire to revel in the misfortune of others simply so that advertisers can try to induce me into buying their wares.

cicadashell

that ain't hell, that's just what we call the east side. although farmington hills is not really any more bike-friendly. my guess is the speed limit was 45 mph, which means the car was traveling at least 55 mph, if the driver had a green light (60 if the light had just turned red). i have nothing to say in defense of that driver's practices; they are, sad to say, typical. i can only hope that we are a notch above squirrels and other urban rodents, and that we can recognize the danger posed by a hurtling two-ton mass, and have some regard for our own safety, and act accordingly. my heart goes out to the deceased's family.

Daily Commute

What if he was trying to get to work on that street? That street is ridable, but you'd have to be careful and, at dusk, well lit. I agree with Alister that the article is useless in deciding who was at fault. We certainly shouldn't use this incident to support a cry to keep cyclists off the road.

Savant

My issue is trying to cross against that much traffic from the perpendicular. If I had to ride it I would ride onto the road, and after merging with traffic I would signal and work my way to the left lane, after which I would make my turn. Crossing 7 lanes of traffic at once on an arterial road, at dusk, with a fast speed limit, on a bike, is just asking for trouble regardless of how you cut it. It's a dangerous road.

Regards,

Savant

Daily Commute

You're right. If the guy had done what you said, he'd probably be alive. Unfortunately, the cop didn't say what you said. The cop said to use the crosswalk, which is stupid. Score: Savant 1, Cop 0.

Roughstuff

Certainly not an alternative in urban areas where almost every crosssing is likely to be busy!

I ride in rural areas. I don't do this at every corner by any means, but if traffic is backed up in all directions at an intersection with crosswalks, I often dismount, walk up to the crosswalk and go when I have the signal (or push the light and get the red/yellow in all directions) and then walk my bike across. I am aware of what many folks mention with crosswalks at intersections; still, the right of way of pedestrians in a crosswalk is so much stronger with cops and juries that it outweighs the disadvantages, to me.

roughstuff

Savant

No offense to anyone, but it seems there is almost a bit of arrogance in regard to what some consider 'cycling rights'.

Yes I do recognise and acknowledge that:

-Bikes have the right to be treated with respect on the road
-Bikes should be treated like any other vehicle
-Bikes shouldn't be forced to traverse like pedestrians

However, people need to accept the fact that bikes have limitations. Bikes are fragile and don't travel very fast in normal situations with an average rider. Bikes are also banned from controlled access freeways. Why? ...because there is too much of a risk for injury.

It is those limitations that should dictate certain situations where a biker may want to choose a safer crossing alternative.

A busy seven lane highway at dusk would be hard to cross driving a car let alone a bike. Let's consider if a person had a tractor or other slow moving vehicle. The risk of an accident skyrockets since the vehicle moves slowly. How is a bike any different, aside from the fact starting from a stop the bike is slow AND hard to see?

Heck, there are plenty of busy 7-lane highways here in Toronto that I would be hard pressed to cross driving a CAR let alone riding a bike. Why should I be so arrogant as to think that just because I'm riding a bike that I can move in the same way a car can?

I don't think it's an insult to suggest that a cyclist may be better to use a crosswalk when crossing busy roads/highways. Personally, I don't consider it at all demeaning or embarassing to cross at a crosswalk. I realise that I'm not made of steel and there are some situations (especially during rush hour) when I don't feel like taking the chance getting hit simply to save a minute of time. That happens to be the same reason I don't jaywalk either.

I think the sign of a good biker is that they will know and recognise that there are certain situations when it is safer to dismount and use a crosswalk. Certainly not for every turn, but in those situations when there is high risk. In my opinion, this situation would qualify as one of those times...

Regards,

Savant

AndrewP

If he wasnt to cross at a crosswalk, he should have crossed at a crossing street (next to the crosswalk) with the green light.

LittleBigMan

I agree. Closetbiker also nailed it: the advice by authorities was bad, and I inferred from the article, "That's what you get for riding a bike in the street." No information shed any light on what the cyclist did wrong, other than, "riding a bike."

The "reading public" is too easily satisfied without details. If it were a car crash, every reader would ask themselves, "How did this crash ["accident"] happen?"

Chris L

It's not, however, something you can rely on. Don't just take my word for it, go and ask any pedestrian who's tried to use a cross-walk anywhere in the urban area of the Gold Coast, and see just how much faith they have in those signals and the reliability of drivers to comply with them. I'd be very surprised if you got any ticks at all in the responses. I don't even rely on them when I'm walking, I'm buggered if I'll try it when I'm cycling anywhere.

eurotrash666

[QUOTE=Allister]You're new here, so I'll let this one slide. But for future reference, here in the Safety and Advocacy forum the general philosophy is that the driver is always at fault, and the police have a barely concealed vendetta against cyclists and will say it's the cyclist's fault, even if it isn't.QUOTE]


savant- great job with the investigation. putting this into perspective gives this thread some direction!

roads like this one should have pedestrian overpasses/underpasses. although it is still up to the cyclist to actually use them, they are the safest way to cross 7-lane expressways. sometimes, it takes a death to get lights, crosswalks, etc. and that is a true shame. city planners should ride bikes more often when drafting plans for roadwork!