Maelochs

What are you talking about?

SHBR

Not absurd.

Its law in Shanghai.

I've never encountered a tractor trailer type vehicle in downtown Shanghai.

Most of the big dump trucks can only drive at night.

Its common sense, when there is high population density.

SHBR

Another point:

Did the driver run over the curb as well?

I remember quite clearly that if you do this during a CDL driving exam, its an automatic fail.

For good reason, like others have said, if it was a pedestrian that got run over. (say a mother with a young child in a stroller) there would be substantial public outcry.

Just another dead cyclist, nothing to see here.

That is a shame, not all cyclists are experienced (certified, licensed, etc.) and sometimes they make mistakes.

The machine that was used to kill her is far more dangerous than a loaded gun in the wrong hands.

genec

Aparrently you did not go to the link in the OP... the law is cited in the video.

Also bear in mind that the link is to a trucker magazine... so this is getting publicity in the trucker community.

MikeyMK

This is another problem with gutter-style cycle lanes. Cyclists, like her, thinking they're safe in a lane despite it going up the inside of traffic. And yet there, she wasn't even in a clear stretch, she was crossing a junction.

Nobody in their right mind crosses a junction up the inside of a vehicle. It can be difficult enough to position yourself safely between cars, and you can't trust them to indicate, but long vehicles are an absolute stopper. She simply should not have crossed the line whilst that was along side her.

He has the law to worry about, and can argue the toss. As cyclists, it's not really the best default train of thought. There's no good being right and 6ft under, you have to be defensive. She wasn't.

Caymandiver1

I drove semi's for over 20 years and we were always taught to try to keep to the right as much as possible to avoid a car or bike from inching into that space between the curb and trailer.

Maelochs

Ask Wouter Weylandt--- a bicycle is also a lethal machine, more dangerous than a gun ... lethal, in fact.

People choke on food .... in the wrong hands, food is more dangerous than a gun.

Saying a truck can kill people after someone dies from hitting a truck .... what, did you think that no one had realized the person who died was killed and was dead?

Also ... if a woman with a double stroller had pushed her stroller into traffic against a light or in the middle of the block and got hit and killed .... it would have been her fault, not the driver who couldn't avoid hitting her.

People who come to a rational discussion with nothing but outpourings of emotion really don't help.

The notion that no one cares about a person on a bicycle and would care more if the exact same person were walking .... that is absurd. it also ignores what actually happened here.

Not only did and do a Lot of people care very much ... Several government agencies thoroughly investigated the accident. You just don't agree with their findings ... maybe because you are blinded by your own paranoia.

One part of my job has me scanning through a lot of crime and justice system reports some days. I see a lot of situations where someone is so sure a person killed another person .... and sometimes when there is DNA, video, eyewitnesses, which all prove that person didn't kill that other person, sometimes the friends and family of the victim still rant on about how "the murderer went free."

What can a rational person do?

I-Like-To-Bike

Not put much credence in the validity of the logic expressed in the comments sections of many if not most Internet sources, nor credit much intelligent thought given by people before posting of such irrational/emotional/biased dreck.

Maelochs

I saw the law about passing and turning ... but the ambiguity here (which is why the driver was not charged under that law) is when the pass took place and how the overtaken vehicle behaved afterwards.

As I have said above, the lane was clear and the pass should have been safe, but the cyclist apparently did not see (or did not look for) turn signals on the truck, and in effect raced into the danger zone of her own accord.

The law as written seems to be intended to make it illegal to swerve around a car on the left and cut it off to make a right. That is not what happened here. The truck did not swerve around the cyclist at the last moment and cut across her path. The cyclist in fact overtook the truck at the intersection, not seeing the turn signals.

I am sure we have all had cars pull into the opposing lane and cut us off to make a turn or beat us to a stop sigh while we were cycling. And I bet none of us like that.

On the other hand, if I raced a car to make a light, going full-speed down the bike lane while ignoring the car .... then if that car signaled a turn but I was so focused on making the light I didn't notice ... obviously my fault.

I am not saying (and I have not said) the driver did everything as well as could be done. I am saying the cyclist put herself at risk and it did Not pay off.

As for this being posted on a truckers' website---why wouldn't it be? What truck driver wouldn't want to learn of something to avoid and be wary of? That doesn't mean the truck driver was at fault. or guilty of negligent homicide. it could be a warning that some cyclists don't pay attention, so the truck driver needs to take extra care.

if people want to see the bad side of life, they can find it. if people want to learn form bad things they can do that. Not for me to decide how others should live.

Jim from Boston

I posted to the now-closed recent Fifty-Plus thread, "FYI a new subforum for you all.":

CliffordK

It is hard to tell if he hit the curb or not. Feeling bumps on the road was likely the reason the truck didn't stop immediately.

One of the differences between the truck and pedestrian is that if the truck was driving at a safe speed (which he may not have been), the pedestrian can grab the kid and take a few steps backward.

In this case my guess is the cyclist stopped short. Took a breath of relief that she hadn't hit the truck as the side of the truck came towards her and knocked her over, then the wheels went over the top.

Even if the truck had been going somewhat slower, it can be difficult to run sideways while on a bicycle. Ideally, one would dismount the bike, toss the bike under the truck, and RUN.

That, or if she hadn't stopped, to take the turn with the truck, and likely have avoided the situation.

Maelochs

Not sure from seeing the video that the cyclist stopped ... I have to assume that at some point she hit the brakes. At the speed she seemed to be traveling (again, 22 fps = 15 mph) she probably couldn't make the turn at speed and couldn't make the turn for sure while emergency braking.

I think she passed the point of no return before she saw that the truck was turning ... she had passed the point where she could have stopped or turned in the space available. even if she had locked up the rear and done a hard fishtail ... and that would be exceedingly risky because if she didn't pull it off she would have gone right under the trailer anyway.

I think ---and I felt the first time I watched the video---and i Fully realize i could be 100 percent wrong-----that her fate was sealed before the truck started turning. Too fast, too close, nowhere to go.

I really don't want to do another frame-by-frame analysis. i did that a few times and frankly it makes me a little sick.

SHBR

I stopped the video before what looked to be an immanent collision.

I don't care to watch it again, others have, and nothing will change as a result of this.

I get that most here are experienced cyclists, and can see the danger of this situation well before it happens.

Here's the thing though, even experienced cyclists can make this mistake.

In China, most experienced drivers make right turns very slowly, to avoid this kind of accident.

It can be annoying, but its safer for everyone.

As a driver, whenever you make a sharp turn, always check the rear wheels, I do this even on a bicycle sometimes.

G.O.A.L. (get out and look) when in doubt

B. Carfree

When someone starts defending an action that is explicitly forbidden by law by making up the reason behind the law, then it is clear that person is simply unwilling to admit to being wrong.

The truck driver turned right from the left lane, in clear violation of very black and white law that exists in every state. (Okay, Oregon and Arizona have some ambiguity regarding bike lanes, but that was a travel lane with shared use markings in it that he turned across.) He also rolled over the sidewalk, another black-and-white violation. His reckless disregard for normal safe driving standards resulted in an unnecessary death. He should be held accountable by the law. Like I said previously, if the safety officers of the trucking outfits I have driven for saw me do what he did, whether or not I killed someone, my final pay check would have been printed out before I got back to the yard to turn in the rig.

Sure, none of us would have found ourselves in the position of the now-deceased cyclist, or so we imagine. That's irrelevant. She's dead because of the unlawful actions of a supposedly trained professional driver. He should be held accountable for his unlawful actions, full stop.

Maelochs

Yeah ... okay. So ... why is it that the driver was not cited, let alone arrested and arraigned for vehicular manslaughter or worse?

Maybe ... people who are using reason, not emotion, to analyze the situation and to look at the rights and responsibilities of Both people involved, .... actually used reason, not emotion.

If the driver had, on video, broken Any, let alone several laws, Some action would have been taken.

Whatever ... it is really funny when someone whose explanation is completely rejected by all the rational analysis, goes on about people unwilling to admit they are wrong.

Oh by the way ... judges, when reviewing laws, do indeed examine the intent of the law. Sorry ... I know how unpleasant facts can be.

So .. . what is your tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory explaining why the truck driver, despite breaking numerous laws On Video, was not cited? Aliens? Lizard people? The anti-bike underground?

SHBR

Have you driven a big truck, ridden in one even?

If so, you might understand the difficulty in driving one of these rigs safely.

Any old yahoo can pull a move like the driver did in that video, it takes actual skill and respect for human life to drive safely.

Sure that move might have been technically legal in the US, but safe, hell no.

In China, the truck driver would be 100% at fault.

I know this for a fact because of a similar accident that my wife witnessed. A scooter that was texting in the bike lane (at night with no lights) t-boned a minivan that was pulling into a driveway, the van stopped, the scooter didn't.

He smashed into the rear quarter panel of the van and was in a coma for 3 days. (no helmet)

Van driver was charged with distracted driving, (even though the video shows she was stopped well before the scooter arrived) and had to pay for all medical expenses.

Maelochs

Pardon me for not having the greatest respect for China's justice system.

In China, you can go to jail and be tortured and killed for praying or meditating in an unapproved fashion.

mr_bill

Wow.

First, the operator and his company settled the civil suit, terms of the settlement were not released.

Second, in Suffolk and Middlesex county, the police investigate vehicular crime in the “best light” for the operator.

The operator says he didn’t see anything, then he didn’t see anything.
The operator says he didn’t feel anything, then he didn’t feel anything.

In one case in Cambridge, the 21 speed bike was in a “high gear” (Largest chainring, 2nd smallest sprocket.) Therefore the victim was “presumed” to be riding at a high rate of speed. They also noted that the reflector was partially obstucted by cables. He was also “not in the bikelane,” even though he didn’t have to be in the bikelane. The rear taillight on the bike was found blinking, but they did not find a front headlight, therefore it was presumed he didn’t have one. Oh, he wasn’t wearing reflective clothing either.

In this case, the “best light” evidence for the operator is that the sharrows marked the bikelane, she wasn’t in that lane, therefore she’s 100% at fault. (Never mind that in fact that a lane marked with sharrows is not a bikelane.) No further investigation of the operator is required.

“The prosecutor should seek to protect the innocent and convict the guilty, consider the interests of victims and witnesses, and respect the constitutional and legal rights of all persons, including suspects and defendants.” [Emphasis mine.]

That doesn’t happen here, or in other cities. There are far too many times where police have stated that the victim was riding the wrong way, or the victim swerved, or the victim was riding the wrong way and swerved, only to be FLAT OUT CONTRADICTED by testimony of multiple witnesses, direct evidence, and video recovered, often recovered by grieving family and friends.

Bottom line, effectively the victim is presumed guilty until proven innocent.

Instead, let’s give her the same privelege that the operator got.

She is innocent until proven guilty.

She was on her way to work at BU or BIDMC that morning. She rode over the Harvard Bridge, then on the block approaching Beacon Street she was alongside the truck because it was moving to the far left lane, because the truck was accelerating, and since the operator didn’t turn on his signals until too late, alongside a truck where the turn signals were not visible. Since she was commuting to either BU or BIDMC, she was about to take a RIGHT turn onto Beacon Street to go through Kenmore Square, when she saw the tractor suddenly TURN from the far left lane. She STOPPED short of the intersection but could not get out of the way as the operator pulled the trailer into her.

-mr. bill

Maelochs

Dude ... that is Wikipedia. Have you ever been to China? I know what the constitution says, but have you been to China? Do you know any Chinese? Please, google "China House Churches." Google "China religious persecution." Google "China Falun Gong persecution." Look up Doctors Against Forced Organ Harvesting. Look up "China persecution of Uighur Muslims."

China allows five religions---but they are the CCP versions. You can be CCP Buddhist, a CCP Taoist, a CCP Protestant Christian, a CCP Three-head-church Catholic, or a CCP Muslim. You can be arrested for being a Roman Catholic, a Baptist ... or any of the Christian faiths practiced anywhere else in the world. You can go to jail for doing Falun Gong meditation.

I have a lot of Chinese friends who have friends or family members who have been arrested, some tortured, and some killed for practicing Falun Gong. I have met several torture survivors. You can use Google, that's great. Really Use it and research the topic.

When you have spent time talking with a woman who was repeatedly thrown naked into a cell full of convicts in an attempt by her jailers to get her to renounce her faith ,.,.. then you come here and tell me about religious freedom in China.

I spent about 18 hours in a Chinese detention center for supporting Falun Gong. But I won't ask you to take my word for it. Look it up.

https://dafoh.org/

Maelochs

Dude ... I know Muslims in the U.S. and most people don't even think twice about them. Look at the news articles about Christian churches helping when people vandalize mosques.

Name for me please, all the Muslims You know who have been tortured to death.

Maelochs

Oh ... and the Roman Catholic faith is a "minority faith"? But you do not deny it is illegal ... but wait, you said China had religious freedom.

bikemig 

You are talking about Boston; bizarre street markings are the norm . . .


You haven't lived until you've figured out how to drive in Boston traffic esp. in the days before GPS . . . .

avole

Deleted my posts as not appropriate to this forum.

Jim from Boston

Bike advocates push for charges against trucker in cyclist’s death .

Quote:

Originally Posted by CliffordK

What absolutely bizarre street markings. It looks like there have been some major upgrades since that incident.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3507792,-71.0895315,3a,75y,352.86h,69.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sssWN-B4rxRnFo3bae-R9tA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Quote:

Originally Posted by bikemig

You are talking about Boston; bizarre street markings are the norm . . .

You haven't lived until you've figured out how to drive in Boston traffic esp.in the days before GPS . . . .

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim from Boston

I live about one block from the scene of this accident.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stun

My experience is that people drive differently in every city and treat cyclists very differently. The best advice often comes from cyclists that live the closest to you …The exception here would also be Jim from Boston--anyone that can successfully commute around Boston has my full respect and probably knows how to deal with about every intersection imaginable![ ]

Just this past week an acquaintance who knows me as cycle commuter mentioned he saw a news feature about this on local TV, and then I read about it in the Boston Globe.

See this editorial in the Boston Globe today, Sunday January 28 (see especially the accompanying photograph).

****

tyrion

From the linked article:

I disagree with the authors. "Blame" is a loaded and inaccurate term - a crucial mistake of hers was not being aware of what the driver was able to see.