Mr. Hairy Legs

How about the "cause" being driver error, which is exactly what it was?

I have done the exact same thing as a driver, which is turning left and being hit by the person who had the right of way. Thankfully she was in a 4-wheeled cage; had it been an unprotected person on two wheels it could have been really ugly.

Nobody is perfect, including you (I am not directing this at anyone specific), and stuff like this is ALWAYS going to happen. As cyclists we need to accept the fact that what we are doing is inherently risky, but as someone mentioned earlier it is a calculated risk and probably worth it in terms of health and happiness. But face it, we all brain fart occasionally, and most of the time we get away with it.

As far as riding on sidewalks for 'safety', there have been a few (3 or 4) cyclists deaths here this summer, and two of them were sidewalk cyclists swerving around pedestrians and falling into traffic.

If you really really don't want to die on a bike, don't ride one. Personally, I just ride and have fun and don't waste my time worrying.

Long Tom

Edit: not sure what happened... this was in reply to a post saying that bright strobes could still be unseen by drivers.

Sure, that could happen. But, at least with the strobe I saw the other day on a bike- you couldn't miss it. It was damn near painful even in full daylight. I'd think a similarly bright red rear strobe would be unmissable, especially since cars approaching from the rear have much more time to notice.

Looigi

Getting left hooked is one of the more common accidents with motorcycles, and it even happens with cars on cars. It's one of the main reasons new motorcycles have full-time headlights but it still happens with some regularity. Anything you can do to increase conspicuousness, flashers, bright colors, riding in the lane rather than on the shoulder (where reasonable) can help reduce the probability but can't guarantee it won't happen. Riding slower, particularly on descents, will greatly shorten stopping distances and provide more oportunity for evasive action...and if impact occurs it'll likely be less severe. Of course I'm the last guy to not go as fast as possible at all times, and tend to eschew Fredly accoutrements.

Delmarva

Yes, exactly. Manipulating statistics to develop bicycle accident rates that are not really comparable to those for automobiles misses a key point. Bike riders are straddling and thereby protecting their 20 pound bikes while car drivers are surrounded and protected by their 4,000 pound vehicles. Bike riders have little more than spandex and reflexes to protect themselves in the bike vs automobile fight. That a bike rider is at risk of greater injury when colliding with a car is apparently not understood by all.

If the rider who was killed was not riding defensively by going no faster than her brakes would allow a safe stop and anticipating dumb car drivers then she missed an opportunity to remain among the living. Riding tucked and as fast as one can go may be fun and technically legal on city streets but it ain't always the best idea.

John Forester

I think that the above is largely inaccurate. So some people do not understand that cyclists are at greater risk of injury than is the motorist in a car-bike collision? I doubt that these are very many people so badly informed. And I see no relevance. Even if some people are so badly informed, what difference does their state of knowledge make to the car-bike collisions that actually do occur? I see no relevance.

The principle that one must be able to make a safe stop within one's sight distance is standard law and standard traffic engineering. But there is no requirement that one must travel so slowly as to be able to make a safe stop when any possible intrusion into one's stopping distance occurs, as happened in the subject case. To have the suggested requirement be adopted would mean that all urban travel would be reduced to walking speed, and much rural travel would be slow and go. The consequences to the population as a whole would be enormous.

squirtdad

I think this is pretty bad logic. I should ride so slowly that I can stop when an idiot runs a red light or right hooks me or pulls out in front of me? that is just....... not logical.

PatrickGSR94

My dad was driving his Toyota Tacoma Pre-Runner on the interstate on Father's Day 2003 when a car on the opposite side suddenly spun out, crossed the median, and his truck smashed the side of the car at 65+ MPH. Pushed the engine back into the firewall, popped airbags (obviously). Thankfully my dad survived with only minor injuries (not sure of other driver's injuries but she did survive also), but it just goes to show you that anything can happen at any time. But IMHO it's no reason to live in fear all the time. That never did anyone any good.

FWIW my dad credits the seat belt and air bag with saving his life, or at least greatly reducing potential injury.

genec

No doubt the air bag and seat belt did their job, that was the kind of collision that years ago would kill all involved. That's a lot of force coming together at freeway speeds.

Astrozombie

No it's not and i have done it and gotten yelled out by potential left crossers, i slow to a speed i can still make a decent stop if necessary. Going downhill you would want to be even more careful.
Sadly I have ridden outdoors less and less since getting my trainer

B. Carfree

What you have said is correct. However, there is ample reason (about 2.4 million annually) for all road users to anticipate errors on the part of their fellow travelers and to prepare to take reasonable steps to mitigate the damage. I wish it were otherwise, but the typical motorist really doesn't have a clue what he/she is doing. As a result, when I am bombing down a hill, I will watch any uphill traffic for the slightest sign that anyone is preparing to left-cross me. If I see a potential problem, I'm either going to shed enough speed to survive or get past the conflict zone before my subject gets to it.

These conflicts don't happen often and certainly don't slow me to a walking speed. Then again, I'm pretty confident that I can survive most collisions in which the motorist is going 35 mph or slower without serious damage (baring some really bad luck). I haven't put that claim to the test in a few years, so maybe I should adjust it down to account for my increasingly lousy vision and reflexes. I'll report back in the memorial thread if I've overestimated my capacity for survival.

genec

You do understand John that the "standard" you mention is violated so often by motorists that the NHTSA has declared that 1/3 of all traffic collisions are due to excessive speed... not speed over the posted speed limit, but speed too high to allow a "safe stop within one's sight distance." Motorist regularly violate that "principle." Take a look at any freeway and note the following distance of many of the motorists on said freeways as an example of people missing that basic principle.

Sorry John, but once again your ideals regarding traffic safety, are clearly at odds with reality.

John Forester

Genec, you are so intent on denigrating motorists at every opportunity that you do so even when that opportunity is not there, or is not relevant. The following distance principle operates under a different system than does the stopping sight distance principle. That you don't know this is the sign of ideological blindness.

genec

Meanwhile John steps right past the NHTSA declaration that 1/3 of all collisions are speed related... while denying that following distance is related to stopping distance...

And John, I am not denigrating motorists... just idealists that seem to think that the American driver actually follows ideological principles.