Cyclist Struck by car - Erie,Pa
 

State police reports indicate there were no lights on his bike.

Bicyclist Struck By Car - YourErie.com - Powered by JET 24 and FOX 66 Erie PA

Were all the motorist's rear lights functional? (Let alone were all the motorist's front lights functional?)

-mr. bill

48 year old David Gabriel was riding his bicycle along Route 20 in Northeast Township around 4:45 A.M.

Off season, sub-freezing temperatures, pre-dawn hours, no rear lights. If anyone is charged in that accident... no jury would ever convict (even if I was on the jury). It is very sad that Mr Gabriel passed but it is not surprising.

I guess it's safe to assume they were.

Temperature notwithstanding, I agree with you on everything else.

The only reason I mentioned the temperature is that most cyclist abandon the roads in the coldest part of winter. I have always felt (no stats to support my feelings) that motorist don't expect cyclist to be on the roads this time of year.

I ride all winter in MN as do quite a few others. Then again, I'm on segregated paths the entire time and fortunately drivers here are used to seeing bicycle riders at crossings.

I'm sure there were no longer any lights on the victim's bike AFTER he was plowed by the the motorist. It would be interesting to know if there were any lights or reflectors (western states only require rear red reflectors during the hours of darkness) BEFORE the impact.

What ever happened to the notion that one should be able to drive without hitting things that are right in front of the vehicle?

I don't recall that notion. If that is a popular notion.... why do all cars have bumpers?

One day while cycling I saw a car stopped in the middle of the road. As I carefully passed I tried to make eye contact with the driver. That's when I noticed he was watching a large buck in a yard not 50 feet away. I had lived in this same area for many years and had seen only a couple deer... but not a buck. And because I live in a city I was shocked at the huge size of this "city buck".

On that ride I actively looked for deer... near the hedges in the side-yards and in shady areas. I think I saw three that day. In the following days I saw deer every time I cycled. I saw deer when driving. I saw deer in the neighbors yard.. while I was eating on my deck. Because I looked for them I saw them. Deer were everywhere.

People see what they look for or what they expect to see.

It would we great if peoples brains processed data at the speed and efficiency that would allow people to see, identify, and properly react to every obstacle they might encounter while traveling at speeds their bodies weren't designed for. But sadly... it doesn't work that way. There is inherent risks in life... and at best life is always only temporary.

Good point about the weather.

Another good point about drivers only looking for what they expect to see. I know that around here there are far fewer cyclists on the roads in winter, a combination of weather and road conditions. Every spring I expect and prepare for drivers who have been out of the habit of looking for cyclists for the previous 4 months. Sort of like the first snow storm every winter, there is always a rash of accidents caused by drivers who somehow forgot everything they learned about driving in snow the previous winter.

I don't really like reading news like this! I commute to work everyday, and each day I keep thinking ' What if today is the last day' So reading stuff like this just increases the anxieties and disturbs my thoughts. Now I suspects the media and the News corporation that sell news like in a retail store publish stuff like that to bring fear to the audience.

Being realistic accidents like this happens everyday, and it is unfortunate. but the way the media put it out there doesn't really informs anything other than a cyclists being struck by a car. That really doesn't help much.

R.I.P David Gabrie, I never met you but I am so sorry to hear about your misfortune like this.

It isn't "The Media" posting "news like this" on A&S. You can thank/blame a few fellows who seem to have an obsession for trolling/Googling the Internet for any/every bicycle incident headline they can find and reposting same on A&S. Sometimes reposted with an inane, uninformed "woe is me/us" comment, sometimes with a fear baiting headline of their own.

Very little of the news.... is positive. There is an average of 23,000 scheduled commercial airline plane take-offs and landings in the United States everyday. Rarely does any crash. People only want to hear about the crashes. Imagine the newspaper headlines "Tens of thousands land safely at US airports".

What if today is your last day? That is a good (and positive) thing to think about!!!! Once you deal with those thoughts and make plans... you can then set aside those nagging fears and/or concerns (or not). I know if my time here is limited (and of course it is)... I hope I get to enjoy plenty of cycling time while I still can. Of course... my children are raised, my life insured, and I am in peace with my creator.

No. Actually bicycle fatalities like Mr Gabrie's don't happen everyday. About half the (approx. American 700 annual) cycling deaths involve children. And as many as 3/4 of the remaining accidents may involve youthful playfulness and often late night drinking. Cycling deaths are not rare. There are inherent danger on the roadways. But it isn't particularly deadly to ride a bike.

Chances of severe and/or disabling injuries are much greater though IMHO.

Thank you that is the kind of stuff I like to read. We still need to minimized the accidents with children and young crazy kids though. If they would just listen.

Good luck with that! Have you raised any children into adulthood?

It has been stated several times that the cyclist was killed. I have not been able to find any where on this forum that has stated that he died. Am I missing something?

Latest reports are he was in Hamot Medical Center. No updates on his condition yet.

All I could find, is that, he is in serious condition.

It's right up there with the notion that the memory is the second thing to go. :D

I'm not saying there has ever been any golden age when cars weren't running into things. However, up until we got all permissive in the '70s and removed criminal sanctions from moving violations, at least there was a generally accepted idea that the person behind the wheel was responsible for where the car went. Now it's more like, "I kept the rubber side down and stayed between the curbs. What more should I be expected to do?"

Also, the lack of air bags, mandatory seat belt laws, crumple zones, collapsible steering columns and such did tend to mete out some punishment to motorists who didn't pay attention. Now they can drive into walls and walk away with only bruises.

You defeat your own point. Cars/motorist/humans have always had accidents. No one really expects people to be perfect. Driving... cycling or even just walking around... people are going to bump into things. If you object to human [accidental] contact..... a remote cabin in the mountains might be a good idea.

Otherwise the joy of cycling is accompanied with the inherent risk or accidental injury. Fatal injury isn't likely but is always possible. Threads like this one should serve as a reminder to us.

PA law states that any car who rear ends another car is instantly at fault. A guy was killed near here, rear-ended, and the driver wasn't charged. No lights on his bike. Had he had lights...it may have been different. (PA law also requires a red light at night.)

Had he had lights. Bikes should come with lights.

I commuted daily in Erie, PA for a summer. Despite the reasonable (albeit hot and muggy at times) weather, I saw no more than ~4 other cyclists over a 3-month period. In the winter, I'd expect that to be even less.

Both are not true.
First, there is a strong presumption that the car who rear ends another car is at fault, but the car in front *may* be found at fault.

For example - if the car in front had an inoperative license plate lamp - such a technical violation *WILL* *NOT* effect assignment of fault. But if a car pulls directly into the path of a car who can not reasonably yield - the car in front may be found at fault. (This finding is far more common now.)

But in PA a car who rear ends a bicycle is instantly, uh.... (I think we know who is too often found at fault, don't we?)

On bicycle equipment.
PA law does *NOT* require a rear lamp on a bicycle.

What is *REQUIRED*:
The following are *OPTIONAL*:
Finally, lamps may be mounted on the rider rather than the bicycle:
Riding a bicycle at night without a front lamp is a violation - but has almost no bearing on getting rear ended. Riding a bicycle at night without a rear lamp is *NOT* a violation. (It may be WISE to ride a bicycle at night with a rear lamp, but it's not required by PA law.)

-mr. bill

I feel that riding without some sort of rear light is really a dumb move, especially at night. I am to the point I leave my blinky light on in the day and am moving to hi-viz shirts.
I feel for this guy's family.
I ride at night and it is tense on roads that wind and twist around here in WV. I quit commuting because of the traffic on the road I had to ride with no shoulder and a bend just prior to where I made a left turn. There is a point when you wonder if it is worth it.