[SDCBC] Bicyclist Dies In Crash With Motorcycle

Bicyclist bikes.alot at cox.net
Thu Jun 7 01:45:07 EDT 2007 

I suspect that an accurate crash report showing the location of 
impact in relation to the width of the roadway... and perhaps the 
condition of the shoulder and/or right-most section of the roadway 
would help figure out what may have happened. The speed of the 
motorcyclist might be interesting too.

At 10:15 PM 6/6/2007, Serge Issakov wrote:
>Jack,
>
>Whether speculation is pointless or has value depends on the goal, 
>doesn't it?  If one is trying to determine what actually happened, I 
>agree, speculation is pointless (and is arguably inappropriate for 
>this forum).  But if we're trying to construct hypothetical but 
>realistic situations based as much as possible on speculating about 
>what is likely to have happened in a real incident in order to 
>discuss what might have been done to avoid that type of crash, then 
>I think it has value, especially if we construct all the reasonably 
>likely scenarios and discuss what might have been done, if anything, 
>to avoid crashes in each.  The latter is what I assume we're doing 
>here; it is what I'm doing, and will proceed accordingly.
>
>I reread your post.  I don't think I misunderstood.  Here is your 
>main point, if I'm not mistaken.
>
> > So when crossing a lane to avoid a freeway on-ramp, what appears
> > as a natural, smooth lane crossing to me appears as veering across
> > the lane to the motorist behind me.
>
>I don't disagree.  I just don't understand the relevance.  The 
>following applies to any hypothetical lane crossing, not necessarily 
>to actually what happened in this particular tragedy at all:
>
>Regardless of whether the cyclist's lane crossing appears smooth or 
>veering, if an overtaking driver hits him in the process, the 
>cyclist violated the right-of-way (ROW) of the overtaking 
>motorist.  That is, the cyclist initiated the crossing of the lane 
>without first establishing right of way to do so.  Some cyclists 
>seem to think all they have to do to establish right of way to cross 
>a lane in a situation like this is signal.  But that's 
>incorrect.  You can't just signal and cut in front of someone who is 
>about to, or is in the process of, passing you.  You have to wait 
>for a sufficiently long gap, or use negotiation (signal and wait 
>until someone yields ROW to you, by slowing down to your speed or 
>changing lanes).
>
>Back to what actually happened here, I see all speculation falling 
>under one of these three general possibilities:
>
>1) The cyclist was maintaining a straight line and the motorcyclist 
>either didn't notice him at all (in time anyway) and hit him from 
>behind, or the motorcyclist passed too closely clipping him, later 
>claiming the cyclist "veered" in front of him.
>
>2) The cyclist moved into the path of the overtaking motorcyclist 
>(perhaps because he didn't notice the motorcyclist, or maybe because 
>he mistakenly thought he had the ROW for some reason).
>
>3) The motorcyclist was passing too closely AND the cyclist moved 
>left, but not much (say a foot or two), though enough to get 
>hit/clipped because the motorcyclist was passing too closely.
>
>Can anyone think of any other possibiliites?
>
>If (1), then I can't think of anything the cyclist could have done 
>to avoid this.
>If (2), then the crash was arguably largely the fault of the 
>cyclist.  Lesson: always look back with a head turn (learn to do 
>this without veering) and make sure you have ROW before moving laterally.
>if (3), again, I'm not sure what the cyclist could have done, 
>assuming his relatively slight lateral adjustment was necessary and reasonable.
>
>Serge
>
>
>
>On 6/6/07, Jack Bochsler <<mailto:jbochsler at yahoo.com> 
>jbochsler at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Speculation on what happened is pointless - we are only
> > going to hear the perspective of the motorist, which may
> > contain some self-preserving bias.
> >
> > Reread my mail, you missed my point.
> > The topic was 'veering' and the speed/angle of movement
> > relative to different vehicle types, not location of
> > movement.
> >
> >
> > --- Serge Issakov <<mailto:serge at issakov.org> serge at issakov.org> wrote:
> >
> > > It's possible but not very likely that the cyclist did absolutely
> > > nothing
> > > wrong and the motorcyclist simply hit him from behind.  I suppose
> > > it's also
> > > possible and arguably slightly more likely that the motoryclist was
> > > passing
> > > him too closely, this startled the cyclist, who looked back over his
> > > left
> > > shoulder and simultaneously "veered" left into the path of the
> > > motorcyclist.
> > >
> > > Much more likely is that the cyclist did not notice the motorcyclist
> > > (perhaps, ironically, because he was looking for a car) and veered in
> > > front
> > > of him.
> > >
> > > In any case, the method of turning left from the bike lane at the
> > > right side
> > > of the road is all too familar to me.  I see it executed on many
> > > mornings
> > > along n/b Regents Rd at the diverge-intersection with Eastgate
> > >
> > Mall< 
> http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=regents+road+at+eastgate+mall,+san+diego,+ca&sll=32.841796,-117.269474&sspn=0.006761,0.010117&ie=UTF8&ll=32.875897,-117.2177&spn=0.003379,0.005059&z=18&om=1&layer=t  
>  >
> > > .
> > >
> > > Cyclists are glued to the bike lane on Regents and veer across the
> > > right
> > > traffic lane that becomes the right arm of the "Y" headed for
> > > Eastgate, to
> > > get into the left arm to continue on Regents.   They rarely merge
> > > left
> > > "vehicularly", which requires starting to merge pretty early, soon
> > > after
> > > crossing Executive if not sooner.
> > >
> > > Serge
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 6/6/07, Jack Bochsler 
> <<mailto:jbochsler at yahoo.com>jbochsler at yahoo.com > wrote:
> > > > I thought about this - not to be pedantic, but veering means
> > > > to turn sharply.  But what would be categorized as a sharp
> > > > turn at 50mph is quite doable and natural at 20mph, and easy
> > > > at 12mph.  So what would appear to be abrupt actions from the
> > > > perspective of a motorized vehicle may well be natural behavior
> > > > from a bicycle.
> > > >
> > > > So when crossing a lane to avoid a freeway on-ramp, what appears
> > > > as a natural, smooth lane crossing to me appears as veering across
> > > > the lane to the motorist behind me. So both parties can be equally
> > > > 'right' and 'wrong' in the same situation.
> > > >
> > > > Although it would be nice if motorists could account for cyclist
> > > > specific behavior, history shows otherwise.  And thinking about
> > > > bicycle peleton behavior, collisions I have seen are a result of
> > > > cyclists moving quicker than the rider behind can react.
> > > > So the onus is clearly on a cyclist to move thru traffic as a
> > > > vehicle would, not as a bicycle can.
> > > >
> > > > jack
> > > >
> > > > --- Jim Baross <<mailto:JimBaross at cox.net>JimBaross at cox.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > At the risk of appearing to be too quick to jump to the defense
> > > of
> > > > > the bicyclist... something I/we may be accused/guilty of in this
> > > case
> > > > >
> > > > > where we don't know what really happened.... We do know that
> > > people
> > > > > on bikes and in vehicles do make mistakes.
> > > > >
> > > > > That said, bicyclists veer. It is the nature of a two-wheeled
> > > device
> > > > > to need to be steered/veered/moved from side to side to keep
> > > upright.
> > > > >
> > > > > People overtaking such a device should account for that veering
> > > to
> > > > > some degree by using safe passing behaviors - slowing until it is
> > > > > safe to move over to provide safe passing distance. It is not
> > > > > generally sufficient to continue the same roadway position when
> > > > > overtaking someone traveling slower.
> > > > >
> > > > > But, maybe the motorcyclist did try to pass safely....
> > > > >
> > > > > At 09:44 AM 6/6/2007, Jack Bochsler wrote:
> > > > > >My interpretation of the "bicyclist veered" statements
> > > > > >is that the bicyclist did not do what the motorist had
> > > > > >wanted/hoped/desired.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >jack
> > > > > >
> > > > > >--- Tom Jenney 
> <<mailto:Thomas.Jenney at Sun.COM>Thomas.Jenney at Sun.COM> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > They had this story on NBC7/39 TV News this afternoon.  The
> > > > > reporter
> > > > > > > said the cyclist just suddenly veered in front of the
> > > > > motorcyclist, who
> > > > > > > was unable to stop in time.  Maybe that is what really
> > > happened
> > > > > > in this case, but
> > > > > > > it just seems a little dubious when this is the standard
> > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > reported by the media.  It perpetuates the notion that
> > > bicyclists
> > > > >
> > > > > > as a whole
> > > > > > > don't  know what they are doing on the road and probably
> > > should
> > > > > > not be there since
> > > > > > > they end up getting killed due to their erratic riding
> > > behavior.
> > > > > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> ____________________________________________________________________________________ 
>
> > Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone 
> who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
> > 
> <http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469>http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469 
>
> >
>_______________________________________________
>
>You are subscribed to the SDCBC mailing list as bikes.alot at cox.net
>To unsubscribe or change mailing options, go to 
>http://www.bikesandiego.org/mailman/listinfo/sdcbc
>List privacy information is located at http://www.stickman-computing.org/aup
>For help or to talk with someone other than the mail robot, send 
>e-mail to postmaster at stickman-computing.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20070607/c2e3951a/attachment-0001.html

More information about the SDCBC mailing list