Jack,<br><br>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.
<br><br>I reread your post. I don't think I misunderstood. Here is your main point, if I'm not mistaken.<br><br>> So when crossing a lane to avoid a freeway on-ramp, what appears<br>> as a natural, smooth lane crossing to me appears as veering across
<br>> the lane to the motorist behind me.<br><br>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:
<br><br>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).
<br><br>Back to what actually happened here, I see all speculation falling under one of these three general possibilities:<br><br>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.
<br><br>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).<br><br>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.
<br><br>Can anyone think of any other possibiliites?<br><br>If (1), then I can't think of anything the cyclist could have done to avoid this.<br>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.
<br>if (3), again, I'm not sure what the cyclist could have done, assuming his relatively slight lateral adjustment was necessary and reasonable.<br><br>Serge<br><br><br><br>On 6/6/07, Jack Bochsler <<a href="mailto:jbochsler@yahoo.com">
jbochsler@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br>> Speculation on what happened is pointless - we are only<br>> going to hear the perspective of the motorist, which may<br>> contain some self-preserving bias.<br>> <br>> Reread my mail, you missed my point.
<br>> The topic was 'veering' and the speed/angle of movement<br>> relative to different vehicle types, not location of<br>> movement.<br>> <br>> <br>> --- Serge Issakov <<a href="mailto:serge@issakov.org">
serge@issakov.org</a>> wrote:<br>> <br>> > It's possible but not very likely that the cyclist did absolutely<br>> > nothing<br>> > wrong and the motorcyclist simply hit him from behind. I suppose
<br>> > it's also<br>> > possible and arguably slightly more likely that the motoryclist was<br>> > passing<br>> > him too closely, this startled the cyclist, who looked back over his<br>> > left
<br>> > shoulder and simultaneously "veered" left into the path of the<br>> > motorcyclist.<br>> ><br>> > Much more likely is that the cyclist did not notice the motorcyclist<br>> > (perhaps, ironically, because he was looking for a car) and veered in
<br>> > front<br>> > of him.<br>> ><br>> > In any case, the method of turning left from the bike lane at the<br>> > right side<br>> > of the road is all too familar to me. I see it executed on many
<br>> > mornings<br>> > along n/b Regents Rd at the diverge-intersection with Eastgate<br>> ><br>> Mall<<a href="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">
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
</a>><br>> > .<br>> ><br>> > Cyclists are glued to the bike lane on Regents and veer across the<br>> > right<br>> > traffic lane that becomes the right arm of the "Y" headed for<br>
> > Eastgate, to<br>> > get into the left arm to continue on Regents. They rarely merge<br>> > left<br>> > "vehicularly", which requires starting to merge pretty early, soon<br>> > after
<br>> > crossing Executive if not sooner.<br>> ><br>> > Serge<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> > On 6/6/07, Jack Bochsler <<a href="mailto:jbochsler@yahoo.com">jbochsler@yahoo.com</a>
> wrote:<br>> > > I thought about this - not to be pedantic, but veering means<br>> > > to turn sharply. But what would be categorized as a sharp<br>> > > turn at 50mph is quite doable and natural at 20mph, and easy
<br>> > > at 12mph. So what would appear to be abrupt actions from the<br>> > > perspective of a motorized vehicle may well be natural behavior<br>> > > from a bicycle.<br>> > ><br>> > > So when crossing a lane to avoid a freeway on-ramp, what appears
<br>> > > as a natural, smooth lane crossing to me appears as veering across<br>> > > the lane to the motorist behind me. So both parties can be equally<br>> > > 'right' and 'wrong' in the same situation.
<br>> > ><br>> > > Although it would be nice if motorists could account for cyclist<br>> > > specific behavior, history shows otherwise. And thinking about<br>> > > bicycle peleton behavior, collisions I have seen are a result of
<br>> > > cyclists moving quicker than the rider behind can react.<br>> > > So the onus is clearly on a cyclist to move thru traffic as a<br>> > > vehicle would, not as a bicycle can.<br>> > >
<br>> > > jack<br>> > ><br>> > > --- Jim Baross <<a href="mailto:JimBaross@cox.net">JimBaross@cox.net</a>> wrote:<br>> > ><br>> > > > At the risk of appearing to be too quick to jump to the defense
<br>> > of<br>> > > > the bicyclist... something I/we may be accused/guilty of in this<br>> > case<br>> > > ><br>> > > > where we don't know what really happened.... We do know that
<br>> > people<br>> > > > on bikes and in vehicles do make mistakes.<br>> > > ><br>> > > > That said, bicyclists veer. It is the nature of a two-wheeled<br>> > device<br>> > > > to need to be steered/veered/moved from side to side to keep
<br>> > upright.<br>> > > ><br>> > > > People overtaking such a device should account for that veering<br>> > to<br>> > > > some degree by using safe passing behaviors - slowing until it is
<br>> > > > safe to move over to provide safe passing distance. It is not<br>> > > > generally sufficient to continue the same roadway position when<br>> > > > overtaking someone traveling slower.
<br>> > > ><br>> > > > But, maybe the motorcyclist did try to pass safely....<br>> > > ><br>> > > > At 09:44 AM 6/6/2007, Jack Bochsler wrote:<br>> > > > >My interpretation of the "bicyclist veered" statements
<br>> > > > >is that the bicyclist did not do what the motorist had<br>> > > > >wanted/hoped/desired.<br>> > > > ><br>> > > > >jack<br>> > > > ><br>
> > > > >--- Tom Jenney <<a href="mailto:Thomas.Jenney@Sun.COM">Thomas.Jenney@Sun.COM</a>> wrote:<br>> > > > ><br>> > > > > > They had this story on NBC7/39 TV News this afternoon. The
<br>> > > > reporter<br>> > > > > > said the cyclist just suddenly veered in front of the<br>> > > > motorcyclist, who<br>> > > > > > was unable to stop in time. Maybe that is what really
<br>> > happened<br>> > > > > in this case, but<br>> > > > > > it just seems a little dubious when this is the standard<br>> > > > explanation<br>> > > > > > reported by the media. It perpetuates the notion that
<br>> > bicyclists<br>> > > ><br>> > > > > as a whole<br>> > > > > > don't know what they are doing on the road and probably<br>> > should<br>> > > > > not be there since
<br>> > > > > > they end up getting killed due to their erratic riding<br>> > behavior.<br>> > > > > ><br>> ><br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> ____________________________________________________________________________________
<br>> Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.<br>> <a href="http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469">http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469
</a><br>> <br>