OOPs, a little cycling "accident" in the news

[cloudguy]

Don't you just love the way this article is written:

http://www.timescall.com/top-stories/ci_32085476/coroner-berthoud-cycling-death-accidental-victim-csu-professor

By the way, how is it possible for a coroner to determine the death in this case was "accidental"?

[kookmyers]

I’m so sick of all these stories and how they are accepted as accidents. Sure, motorists don’t often get into their vehicles thinking they want to kill someone, but that doesn’t make collisions accidents in my opinion.

“authorities believe the cyclist collided with the passenger side of the tanker truck“ while traveling in the same direction?

[cloudguy]

“authorities believe the cyclist collided with the passenger side of the tanker truck“ while traveling in the same direction?

Yeah, cause cyclists always tend to randomly veer over and collide into giant semis traveling in the same direction, as opposed to you know, an inattentive truck driver drifting into the bike lane while looking at a phone, or worse yet, buzzing a rider just to show 'em who has the right of way. But at least the driver "was visibly shaken" after the fact.

[zzy]

The NYPD has mastered the art of writing accident reports that blame a cyclist for his own death, noting for example that a cyclist 'fell' under the wheels of a truck. No mention that the truck made an unsignalled turn thru a bike lane where the cyclist had right of way. How far our police force is willing to go to absolve negligent drivers is utterly terrifying. Even when a truck driver hits and kills a cyclist, upsetting the driver so much they abandon their commercial vehicle in the middle of industrial bushwick and flee the scene, the police will bend over backwards to claim the driver had no idea he hit someone. In spite of the huge dent and blood all over the front.

[cmg]

I’m so sick of all these stories and how they are accepted as accidents. Sure, motorists don’t often get into their vehicles thinking they want to kill someone, but that doesn’t make collisions accidents in my opinion.

“authorities believe the cyclist collided with the passenger side of the tanker truck“ while traveling in the same direction?

"Larimer County Sheriff's Office investigators said Monday that they believe Moody collided with the passenger side of the semi truck as both were headed southbound on Berthoud Parkway near Bunyan Avenue." Article talks very little about the accident. It's the last statement in the story. Where's the outrage?

[kevinvc]

There's no way to know what happened here. Maybe the driver drifted into the bike lane. Maybe Mr. Berthoud swerved into the vehicle while avoiding debris in his lane.

There's no way of knowing without video or trustworthy eyewitness accounts. In this case, there's only the account of one individual who isn't exactly unbiased.

I can see where, legally, the police may not be able to assign fault to either party. But if that's the case, it seems incredibly wrong to say that they were able to know that Mr. Berthoud was to blame, which is what appears to happen here.

[Ozz]

"Moody, 62, died of "multiple blunt force injuries," the Larimer County Coroner's Office announced Tuesday after conducting an autopsy. The coroner ruled Moody's death as accidental."

Cause of death was blunt force trauma.....resulting from a collision between a truck and a bicycle.

Was it an accident or intentional? Probably an accident, but that is for the police to determine, not the coroner.

Article also states: "Moody collided with the passenger side of the semi truck"

This phrasing leads one to believe that Moody initiated contact with the truck....I have yet to meet a cyclist who would intentionally try to "lean into" a truck to get it to move over.

Therefore, the article leads one to believe that it was Moody's fault he is dead and the driver of the truck is not to blame at all.

[cloudguy]

Was it an accident or intentional? Probably an accident, but that is for the police to determine, not the coroner.


Also, Colorado has a 3-foot passing law, so how does a cyclist veer 3 feet into a truck?

The article further states that drugs and/or alcohol were not believed to be involved in the accident, which is a standard for these types of stories. But I would argue that texting/phone use should also be added to this list.

[velofinds]

Don't you just love the way this article is written:

http://www.timescall.com/top-stories/ci_32085476/coroner-berthoud-cycling-death-accidental-victim-csu-professor

By the way, how is it possible for a coroner to determine the death in this case was "accidental"?

The sad thing is that this (both where the paper is based as well as where the accident occurred) is hardly cycling-hostile territory (locals, feel free to correct me if I'm off-base).

Source: https://www.coloradoan.com/story/news/2018/05/10/fort-collins-beats-boulder-best-bike-city-united-states/596662002/

[gdw]

The articles really don't provide much information so it would be wise to wait for the investigation to be completed before jumping to conclusions.

[joosttx]

Yeah, cause cyclists always tend to randomly veer over and collide into giant semis traveling in the same direction, as opposed to you know, an inattentive truck driver drifting into the bike lane while looking at a phone, or worse yet, buzzing a rider just to show 'em who has the right of way. But at least the driver "was visibly shaken" after the fact.

what you are describing in your fantasy is still an accident.

[cachagua]

Probably an accident, but that is for the police to determine, not the coroner...


Dudes, relax. The coroner is not settling his Karnak The Magnificent turban on his head and consulting chicken guts to "determine" what he puts in his report. The coroner takes the investigators' word for it, exactly as the article states. That's part 2 of the coroner's job -- part 1 is, any stab wounds? Any gunshot wounds? Any drugs in the person's system? et cetera et cetera, and then in combination with that, they basically retail what the on-scene investigators tell them.

Hammering on the coroner for whatever upsets you about this incident is misguided at best. We don't know what happened here -- therefore, jumping to the conclusion that the people who checked things out themselves, and know better than we do, are jumping to conclusions, is worse than misguided, it's hypocritical.

Somebody's dead who needn't be. It's very sad. For us to go all Karnak The Magnificent ourselves and start spouting conspiracy theories doesn't improve anything.

[RonW87]

Presumably there will be a lawsuit against the driver and transport company. Maybe more facts will emerge out of that.

[Mark McM]

Was it an accident or intentional? Probably an accident, but that is for the police to determine, not the coroner.

It might not be either - there is an intermediate category generally referred to as 'negligence'. This covers acts which weren't intentionally committed, but in which due care was not taken to prevent harm - I'd guess that most crashes involving bicycles and cars fall under this category. A true 'accident' is an unforeseeable event, whereas 'negligence' is foreseeable. For example, if motorist experiences a tire blow-out, causing the vehicle to veer into a cyclist, that would typically be classified as an 'accident'. Whereas, if the motorist took their eyes off the road to adjust their radio or read a text message, and allowed the car to drift out of the lane and hit a cyclist, that would be classified as 'negligence'. Depending on the extent of the negligence, it could be criminal act.

Many journalists are now using the word 'crash' or 'collision' instead of 'accident' when actual intent (or lack of it) has not yet been established.

[Peter P.]

Maybe Moody WAS DISTRACTED because he was staring at his Garmin or better yet, checking his phone to see if he just won that Strava KOM, or possibly even taking a phone call or sending a text...

It's not like all cyclists are angels.

There's little evidence here to go on, so let's not send the lynch mob out to get the driver so fast.

[froze]

I hate reading forums about someone getting killed while riding a bike because about 98% of you get all wound up and immediately want to blame the motorist, you know because god knows it's NEVER the cyclists fault.

While it's true that roughly 75% of accidents are motorists fault you still don't have the right to be the judge and jury over whomever, in this case the truck driver, till all the facts are in and we may never get all the facts on this one. I believe what it says, it was an accident, you don't send people to jail for having an accident if there were no underlying reasons for the accident like drunk driving for example. It says that the man was visibly shaken from knowing that he was involved in someone's death, I highly doubt he could fake that which means it wasn't intentional.

All commercial drivers when in involved in a fatality or very seriously injury type of accidents are immediately taken in for a drug/alcohol screening; their log records are gone through, which in today's world are electronic which can't be cheated; cell phone usage records are gone through to make sure they weren't using it at the time of the accident; even the truck is given a safety inspection to make sure it was in compliance.

But I know how todays world loves drama so let's blame and convict the driver and get him hung fast before he kills someone else.

[oldpotatoe]

"Larimer County Sheriff's Office investigators said Monday that they believe Moody collided with the passenger side of the semi truck as both were headed southbound on Berthoud Parkway near Bunyan Avenue." Article talks very little about the accident. It's the last statement in the story. Where's the outrage?

Where's the information, first..? Then maybe outrage, if needed..at the cyclist OR the driver..

[froze]

There was one of those "where's the outrage" when a young, attractive doctor in Boston was killed by a truck driver. The people that posted the "where's the outrage" went on and on how the driver broke laws, problem was the driver didn't break ANY law, and there was video's from street cameras that showed he was in the right the whole time. It was the cyclist who do to inexperience around large profile vehicles, and due to HER breaking the law that said bikes were to be in the bike lane which she was not is what killed her. The "outrage" posting went on to say the police lied on the report! NO THEY DID NOT! They put exactly on the police report what really happened, but cyclists like to blame others for their misdeeds, unfortunately that time the misdeed was on the cyclist and it cost the life of a person.

You can watch the drama entered in by the drama cyclists here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7zrOg5GdvE

As you watch that video notice starting at 45 seconds into it that there is a lane with the image of a bicycle and an arrow, and there is a bicyclist in that lane, that is the only place that bicycles are allowed in Boston. While the truck driver is in that same lane the Doctor was suppose to merge over into the bike lane about a block back from the intersection at the 45 sec mark, at the 49 sec mark you can see the truck in question is in the far right lane which when he passes intersection there becomes a another right hand lane which is a bus lane only and signs clearly marking that which you will read in the police report, and the cyclist is suppose to stay in the now new bike lane and not go into the other right bus lane. At 1:04 the truck driver that gets involved in the accident has his turn signal on before he even got to that intersection before that other right hand lane occurs thus the doc was behind the truck and should have seen the turn signal on as the cross the intersection, and the doc should have seen and been aware that her original lane was going to be the bike lane since it was clearly marked as one. But instead the doc races along side of the truck without knowing evidently that trucks, and other high profile vehicles, need to use a lot of lane(s) to make their turn, and she doesn't realize is that due to the size of the truck and the much smaller size of her and her bike the driver can't even her, so she is completely riding unsafe at that moment she got off the bike lane. Now at 1:09 the driver is making his wide turn, which he needs to do, and he still has his signal on the she is oblivious as to what she's doing or the truck is doing. By the way, flatbed trucks need to make even a wider turn then regular semi trucks but regardless she would have gotten nailed by either.

Of course you'll read some code there at 1:12 but in Boston the bike lane law supersedes the Mass Gen Laws they show, but that was for the drama part. At 1:23 a white car turns right, had she been a bit faster she would have gotten hit by it because the car never saw her either! The mirrors on the semi are turning with the tractor so there was no way the driver could have seen her, she was in the danger zone. So the truck hits her and kills her, but the driving a big truck you can't tell what you hit, the driver assumed, and correctly so that he clipped the curve so he kept going not knowing he hit a cyclist. He was later stopped by police but not charge with hit and run because he had no clue he hit a cyclist. Very tragic indeed but it wasn't the truck drivers complete fault.

Now if I was the driver of the truck I would have slowed down to see where the cyclist went to, did they get behind me as required or stayed along side, but traffic in Boston is hectic, and people don't want some trucker slowing way down to see what's going on, and then you'll have motorists passing you and jerking in front of you to turn right which meant that some car would have probably hit her.

The police report is here: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/02/01/what-police-report-shows-tragic-crash-back-bay-that-left-bicyclist-dead/PsSDSt4eyMy4K5tXeC1yCL/story.html Read this carefully because the truck was found to be in compliance of all laws and in fact in some areas exceeded minimal law requirements.

Watch this video of what a truck driver can see with their mirrors: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lorry-drivers-blind-spots-video-2849365

Not sure why trucks don't have larger mirrors, but they should have mirrors that are twice as wide and twice as long as currently required so they can get more of a view, not sure if that would actually work or not.

But anyway that video is a prime example of cyclists going crazy because some cyclist is killed and therefore it's always the motorist fault when in fact they can't see the truth staring at them in the face!

[Mark McM]

There was one of those "where's the outrage" when a young, attractive doctor in Boston was killed by a truck driver. The people that posted the "where's the outrage" went on and on how the driver broke laws, problem was the driver didn't break ANY law, and there was video's from street cameras that showed he was in the right the whole time. It was the cyclist who do to inexperience around large profile vehicles, and due to HER breaking the law that said bikes were to be in the bike lane which she was not is what killed her. The "outrage" posting went on to say the police lied on the report! NO THEY DID NOT! They put exactly on the police report what really happened, but cyclists like to blame others for their misdeeds, unfortunately that time the misdeed was on the cyclist and it cost the life of a person.

You can watch the drama entered in by the drama cyclists here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7zrOg5GdvE

As you watch that video notice starting at 45 seconds into it that there is a lane with the image of a bicycle and an arrow, and there is a bicyclist in that lane, that is the only place that bicycles are allowed in Boston. While the truck driver is in that same lane the Doctor was suppose to merge over into the bike lane about a block back from the intersection at the 45 sec mark, at the 49 sec mark you can see the truck in question is in the far right lane which when he passes intersection there becomes a another right hand lane which is a bus lane only and signs clearly marking that which you will read in the police report, and the cyclist is suppose to stay in the now new bike lane and not go into the other right bus lane. At 1:04 the truck driver that gets involved in the accident has his turn signal on before he even got to that intersection before that other right hand lane occurs thus the doc was behind the truck and should have seen the turn signal on as the cross the intersection, and the doc should have seen and been aware that her original lane was going to be the bike lane since it was clearly marked as one. But instead the doc races along side of the truck without knowing evidently that trucks, and other high profile vehicles, need to use a lot of lane(s) to make their turn, and she doesn't realize is that due to the size of the truck and the much smaller size of her and her bike the driver can't even her, so she is completely riding unsafe at that moment she got off the bike lane. Now at 1:09 the driver is making his wide turn, which he needs to do, and he still has his signal on the she is oblivious as to what she's doing or the truck is doing. By the way, flatbed trucks need to make even a wider turn then regular semi trucks but regardless she would have gotten nailed by either.

Of course you'll read some code there at 1:12 but in Boston the bike lane law supersedes the Mass Gen Laws they show, but that was for the drama part. At 1:23 a white car turns right, had she been a bit faster she would have gotten hit by it because the car never saw her either! The mirrors on the semi are turning with the tractor so there was no way the driver could have seen her, she was in the danger zone. So the truck hits her and kills her, but the driving a big truck you can't tell what you hit, the driver assumed, and correctly so that he clipped the curve so he kept going not knowing he hit a cyclist. He was later stopped by police but not charge with hit and run because he had no clue he hit a cyclist. Very tragic indeed but it wasn't the truck drivers complete fault.

Now if I was the driver of the truck I would have slowed down to see where the cyclist went to, did they get behind me as required or stayed along side, but traffic in Boston is hectic, and people don't want some trucker slowing way down to see what's going on, and then you'll have motorists passing you and jerking in front of you to turn right which meant that some car would have probably hit her.

The police report is here: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/02/01/what-police-report-shows-tragic-crash-back-bay-that-left-bicyclist-dead/PsSDSt4eyMy4K5tXeC1yCL/story.html Read this carefully because the truck was found to be in compliance of all laws and in fact in some areas exceeded minimal law requirements.

Watch this video of what a truck driver can see with their mirrors: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lorry-drivers-blind-spots-video-2849365

Not sure why trucks don't have larger mirrors, but they should have mirrors that are twice as wide and twice as long as currently required so they can get more of a view, not sure if that would actually work or not.

But anyway that video is a prime example of cyclists going crazy because some cyclist is killed and therefore it's always the motorist fault when in fact they can't see the truth staring at them in the face!

Sadly, there has ben a lot of misinformation floating around regarding the Anita Kurmann death, and the above post is no different.

Firstly, Anita Kurmann was not breaking any laws. There are no laws in Massachusetts restricting bicycles to bike lanes (and Boston City laws can't supercede state law anyway). MassBike claims, and the video evidence supports, that the truck driver broke Massachusetts law Section 90 part 14 (https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter90/Section14): "No person operating a vehicle that overtakes and passes a bicyclist proceeding in the same direction shall make a right turn at an intersection or driveway unless the turn can be made at a safe distance from the bicyclist at a speed that is reasonable and proper." The video shows that the driver approached the bicycles from behind (when the bicyclist should have been in plain sight), and then started to pass the cyclist. Before completing the pass, the truck driver turned right, into the cyclist. The presence or absence of a bike lane has no bearing on this. Any blind spots on the side of the truck are no excuse, as the driver could see the cyclist before he started to pass, and therefore was obligated to ensure that the cyclist was no longer in his path before starting to turn (as required by the law cited above).

Unfortunately, I can't see the Boston Globe article cited to respond to it, because it is behind a pay wall.

[bikingshearer]

Maybe Moody WAS DISTRACTED because he was staring at his Garmin or better yet, checking his phone to see if he just won that Strava KOM, or possibly even taking a phone call or sending a text...

It's not like all cyclists are angels.

There's little evidence here to go on, so let's not send the lynch mob out to get the driver so fast.

I'm not out to get the driver, at least not without more. Yes, it appears it was an accident, in that nobody intended for it to happen. That does not make what happened okay, or just another sad slice of life.

But what bothers me the most is the subtle but effective way that the local PD threw Professor Moody under the proverbial bus. The article says that the PD believes that "Moody collided with the passenger side of the semi truck . . . ." As phrased, it says that it was Professor Moody who took the active role - he did the colliding. That in and of itself is an attribution of fault, and I promise that 95% of the people who read the article will take it that way.

The problem is that nobody knows that. Unless there is more info available that is not being shared (and I doubt there is), nobody has any idea exactly what happened. (Well, the truck driver might, but what are the odds of him ratting himself out?) SO DON'T REPORT IT AS IF THE CYCLIST CAUSED HIS OWN DEMISE WHEN ALL YOU KNOW IS THAT A COLLISION OCCURRED. (Sorry for shouting, but this sort of thing pisses me of.)

Words matter. Truth matters. How you report events matters.

[gdw]

"But what bothers me the most is the subtle but effective way that the local PD threw Professor Moody under the proverbial bus. The article says that the PD believes that "Moody collided with the passenger side of the semi truck . . . ." As phrased, it says that it was Professor Moody who took the active role - he did the colliding. That in and of itself is an attribution of fault, and I promise that 95% of the people who read the article will take it that way."

The reporter chose the words in the article not the police. He would have been told what the driver or witnesses reported to the responding officers although his source might have actually been a dispatcher or info gleamed from listening to a scanner. Claiming the PD threw the deceased under the proverbial bus is nonsense but it's fashionable nowadays. Believe it not quite a few of our state and local officers are cyclists.

[Gummee]

I hate reading forums about someone getting killed while riding a bike because about 98% of you get all wound up and immediately want to blame the motorist, you know because god knows it's NEVER the cyclists fault.

While it's true that roughly 75% of accidents are motorists fault you still don't have the right to be the judge and jury over whomever, in this case the truck driver, till all the facts are in and we may never get all the facts on this one. I believe what it says, it was an accident, you don't send people to jail for having an accident if there were no underlying reasons for the accident like drunk driving for example. It says that the man was visibly shaken from knowing that he was involved in someone's death, I highly doubt he could fake that which means it wasn't intentional.

All commercial drivers when in involved in a fatality or very seriously injury type of accidents are immediately taken in for a drug/alcohol screening; their log records are gone through, which in today's world are electronic which can't be cheated; cell phone usage records are gone through to make sure they weren't using it at the time of the accident; even the truck is given a safety inspection to make sure it was in compliance.

But I know how todays world loves drama so let's blame and convict the driver and get him hung fast before he kills someone else.

So, if 75% of car vs bike accidents are the car's fault, it isn't much of a stretch to blame the driver.

I don't have a dog in this hunt, so will wait till I get more info before castigating the driver.

M

[kevinvc]

Maybe Moody WAS DISTRACTED because he was staring at his Garmin or better yet, checking his phone to see if he just won that Strava KOM, or possibly even taking a phone call or sending a text...

It's not like all cyclists are angels.

There's little evidence here to go on, so let's not send the lynch mob out to get the driver so fast.

Please don't compare people posting negative things about the driver on an internet forum to a lynch mob. It shows a disgusting lack of knowledge about US history or an even worse disregard for proportion.

[parris]

Mark I've watched the video from Boston several times. It's a tragedy what happened to the doc. What it looks like to me is that the truck passed the doc a few blocks before the turn. The doc then comes up on the trucks right side while the truck driver had his indicator on. The video makes it look like she never got in front of the truck once he passed her on the bridge a few blocks before the intersection. The video's not the clearest so if I'm missing something please let me know.

[Mark McM]

Mark I've watched the video from Boston several times. It's a tragedy what happened to the doc. What it looks like to me is that the truck passed the doc a few blocks before the turn. The doc then comes up on the trucks right side while the truck driver had his indicator on. The video makes it look like she never got in front of the truck once he passed her on the bridge a few blocks before the intersection. The video's not the clearest so if I'm missing something please let me know.

You should watch the video again. At no time did the truck completely pass Dr. Kurmann. In fact, its even worse: Dr. Kurmann is in the right lane, and the truck (from behind) pulls up next to her in the center lane. As the truck approaches the intersection (still next to Dr. Kurmann), the truck first steers into the left lane, and then turns across two lanes of traffic to turn right at the intersection.

Much as been made of the presence (or absence) of bike lanes in this crash. But bike lanes have nothing to do with it. Dr. Kurmann was legally in the right lane, travelling just as a car might. She did not pass, or pull up next to the truck - the truck approached from the rear and pulled up next to her. Had she been in a car, she still would still have been hit by the illegal right turn of the truck from the left lane.

[parris]

Mark I rewatched the video a few times. I could be wrong but when watching from about the minute mark on it appears that the doc passed first a box truck, car, pickup and was in the act of passing the flatbed truck all on the right when she was struck. If you watch the video from where the light changes before she was struck it shows a cyclist at the intersection taking the lane in front of a car. The cyclist clears the intersection and appears to move right before going out of camera view.

Let me know what you see after you've watched the video again because maybe I'm missing something that you're not.

[redir]

Hitting the passengers side of the car. It's kind of like saying that a man was killed when he was walking down the street and walked into a piano. The piano fell from a 10th story window.

[froze]

Sadly, there has ben a lot of misinformation floating around regarding the Anita Kurmann death, and the above post is no different.

Firstly, Anita Kurmann was not breaking any laws. There are no laws in Massachusetts restricting bicycles to bike lanes (and Boston City laws can't supercede state law anyway). MassBike claims, and the video evidence supports, that the truck driver broke Massachusetts law Section 90 part 14 (https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter90/Section14): "No person operating a vehicle that overtakes and passes a bicyclist proceeding in the same direction shall make a right turn at an intersection or driveway unless the turn can be made at a safe distance from the bicyclist at a speed that is reasonable and proper." The video shows that the driver approached the bicycles from behind (when the bicyclist should have been in plain sight), and then started to pass the cyclist. Before completing the pass, the truck driver turned right, into the cyclist. The presence or absence of a bike lane has no bearing on this. Any blind spots on the side of the truck are no excuse, as the driver could see the cyclist before he started to pass, and therefore was obligated to ensure that the cyclist was no longer in his path before starting to turn (as required by the law cited above).

Unfortunately, I can't see the Boston Globe article cited to respond to it, because it is behind a pay wall.

Sorry but you're wrong according to the law, now like I said before he may have been negligent to a certain degree, what that degree is has never been told, I do know that a lawyer was able, as lawyers usually are against truck drivers, to get a settlement for the doctors estate. Like I said I would have slowed down to a stop if necessary to see where that cyclist was, and in that respect the driver was partially at fault, but not 100% at fault but decides that the driver was 25% at fault (example only), this would mean that the estate would get $250k out of a million dollar lawsuit. While the attorney did win an undetermined amount of money for the estate the law still said that the driver could not be prosecuted because he didn't do anything wrong in the way the law is written.

Does that mean the law is written poorly? maybe, but cyclists are not trained well for how to behave around traffic either, the Doc had no idea how big trucks turn and she put herself in a dangerous situation, and she never noticed the turn signals on so she could have avoided the trucks turning path by staying behind the truck until the turn is completed. And this is the sore point of contention, is that she FAILED to observe the truck's turn signals, she was behind the truck for about 4 seconds after the signals went on but she decided to pass on the wrong side, so the only thing I can think of is she never saw the signal light, which was proven to be working in the rear, and she didn't know she shouldn't pass a large profile vehicle on the right. How many times can I say that before you get it?

This is a tragedy that if we watch the video we can learn NOT to ever pass any large profile vehicle on the right, in fact you should NEVER even pass a car on the right! I've seen lots of cars over my 50 years of driving turn right and almost kill a cyclist because they never saw them and because they're not expecting them to be there. For safety reasons in situations like the one in Boston (assuming no bike lane) you should be taking the lane and not the far right side, in the Boston case where there was bike lane she should have been in that lane like the other cyclist before her was.

I think her estate probably got 25% to 33% of the settlement originally demanded, because she was at fault at least for not maintaining her presence in the bike lane, and for not paying attention to the turn signals of another vehicle and making an unsafe pass. You can't tell me that if you were driving your car behind a vehicle and saw a truck in this case go into the middle lane with his right turn signal on that you would try to pass on his right, please tell me you wouldn't do that, because if you come up with some sort of nonsense for why you would do that then you really don't know how to drive!!!

[Mark McM]

Mark I rewatched the video a few times. I could be wrong but when watching from about the minute mark on it appears that the doc passed first a box truck, car, pickup and was in the act of passing the flatbed truck all on the right when she was struck. If you watch the video from where the light changes before she was struck it shows a cyclist at the intersection taking the lane in front of a car. The cyclist clears the intersection and appears to move right before going out of camera view.

Let me know what you see after you've watched the video again because maybe I'm missing something that you're not.

Unfortunately, the video is fairly low resolution, so the small figure of Kurmann isn't really distinguishable until she has come off the Mass. Ave. bridge, at which point she and the truck are side by side. None-the-less, the idea that Kurmann passed several other vehicles and was in the process of the passing the truck makes no sense if you watch the earlier part of the video. The video shot of the accident shows the Boston side of the Mass. Ave. bridge, which ends a block before the accident intersection (Mass. Ave. and Beacon St.). The earlier part of the videos shows Kurmann entering the Mass. Ave. bridge from the Cambridge side, and then the truck entering the bridge 20 seconds later. Any vehicles that are behind the truck would have entered the bridge even later. When the camera on the Boston side of the bridge picks up Kurmann and the truck, the truck has caught up with and is alongside Kurman - since Kurmann started out in front of the truck, there is no way that the Kurmann could have passed the truck or any vehicles behind the truck. Due to the timeline, it is clearly the truck that passing Kurmann, not the other way around.

[Mark McM]

Sorry but you're wrong according to the law, now like I said before he may have been negligent to a certain degree, what that degree is has never been told, I do know that a lawyer was able, as lawyers usually are against truck drivers, to get a settlement for the doctors estate.

Please point out the law that you believe that Kurmann broke. Also please address this point: The truck started the right turn from the leftmost traffic lane, at the time when Kurmann was lawfully in the right lane. When is it okay for a vehicle to make a right turn from the leftmost lane, across other lanes of traffic? Perhaps it is okay when the only vehicles in the right lane are bicycles?

[froze]

You should watch the video again. At no time did the truck completely pass Dr. Kurmann. In fact, its even worse: Dr. Kurmann is in the right lane, and the truck (from behind) pulls up next to her in the center lane. As the truck approaches the intersection (still next to Dr. Kurmann), the truck first steers into the left lane, and then turns across two lanes of traffic to turn right at the intersection.

Much as been made of the presence (or absence) of bike lanes in this crash. But bike lanes have nothing to do with it. Dr. Kurmann was legally in the right lane, travelling just as a car might. She did not pass, or pull up next to the truck - the truck approached from the rear and pulled up next to her. Had she been in a car, she still would still have been hit by the illegal right turn of the truck from the left lane.

I've watched it several times myself, it is clear on my monitor that she was alongside the white panel truck that was behind two other vehicles plus the MAC, so she was about 6 to 7 car lengths behind the MAC as she comes into view but she's closing the gap fast mostly because she's moving rather quickly, in my opinion to fast for the conditions, but the truck is slowing down to make the turn which slows down the other vehicles behind the MAC, at 1:03 the trucks blinkers come into view after they clear the other truck in front of the MAC truck enough for us to see that the trucker had his blinker on.

LOOK boys and girls, I didn't bring this up to start a fight, I brought this up in hopes it would educate you all as to how NOT to behave in city traffic, in hopes some of you who didn't realize some of this stuff will learn from it and not get hurt or killed yourselves like the doc did. Had the doc knew about this stuff she would be alive today, by paying attention to vehicles rear lights, never passing any car or truck on the right lane as approaching an intersection or even a driveway that instead take the lane behind a vehicle (but not too close to give you time to stop of course), and by doing one of two things, if a lane is clearly marked as a bike lane to use that lane, if not, like I said in the last sentence, take the lane you can legally do that.

ALWAYS pay attention to everything going around you because in heavy traffic situations can change very quickly and you need to be alert. You cannot under any circumstances, even if those circumstances say you're in the right, assume any motorist can see you, you must ride defensively and assume motorists CANNOT see you, because roughly 75% of accidents where the motorist was at fault the reason given was...THEY DIDN'T SEE THE CYCLIST!! So you have to realize that and act accordingly. Don't make sudden turns, don't cut off other cars, don't run lights, in other words act as if you are driving your personal car because the rules of the road that applies to cars also applies to bicycles unless otherwise posted.

Where I live there is a bad bike path, the path crosses driveways of homes and businesses with no signs posted at the edge of the bike path warning motorists of cyclists, It's actually safer for a bike to be on the street at that location then on the path! You have to decide what roads to take that offer you the best chance at remaining safe, and you have to follow the rules of the road to maintain your safety. Even though some communities say you have to be to the far right, you have the right also to take the lane if your safety is in question, and in a city the chances are your safety is indeed in question if you ride to the far right instead of taking the lane.

Anyway watch that film again and again and figure out what she should have done to stay alive so you can stay alive.

[joosttx]

I've watched it several times myself, it is clear on my monitor that she was alongside the white panel truck that was behind two other vehicles plus the MAC, so she was about 6 to 7 car lengths behind the MAC as she comes into view but she's closing the gap fast mostly because she's moving rather quickly, in my opinion to fast for the conditions, but the truck is slowing down to make the turn which slows down the other vehicles behind the MAC, at 1:03 the trucks blinkers come into view after they clear the other truck in front of the MAC truck enough for us to see that the trucker had his blinker on.

LOOK boys and girls, I didn't bring this up to start a fight, I brought this up in hopes it would educate you all as to how NOT to behave in city traffic, in hopes some of you who didn't realize some of this stuff will learn from it and not get hurt or killed yourselves like the doc did. Had the doc knew about this stuff she would be alive today, by paying attention to vehicles rear lights, never passing any car or truck on the right lane as approaching an intersection or even a driveway that instead take the lane behind a vehicle (but not too close to give you time to stop of course), and by doing one of two things, if a lane is clearly marked as a bike lane to use that lane, if not, like I said in the last sentence, take the lane you can legally do that.

ALWAYS pay attention to everything going around you because in heavy traffic situations can change very quickly and you need to be alert. You cannot under any circumstances, even if those circumstances say you're in the right, assume any motorist can see you, you must ride defensively and assume motorists CANNOT see you, because roughly 75% of accidents where the motorist was at fault the reason given was...THEY DIDN'T SEE THE CYCLIST!! So you have to realize that and act accordingly. Don't make sudden turns, don't cut off other cars, don't run lights, in other words act as if you are driving your personal car because the rules of the road that applies to cars also applies to bicycles unless otherwise posted.

Where I live there is a bad bike path, the path crosses driveways of homes and businesses with no signs posted at the edge of the bike path warning motorists of cyclists, It's actually safer for a bike to be on the street at that location then on the path! You have to decide what roads to take that offer you the best chance at remaining safe, and you have to follow the rules of the road to maintain your safety. Even though some communities say you have to be to the far right, you have the right also to take the lane if your safety is in question, and in a city the chances are your safety is indeed in question if you ride to the far right instead of taking the lane.

Anyway watch that film again and again and figure out what she should have done to stay alive so you can stay alive.

I took a motorcycle safety course once. It was probably one of the best things I ever done even though I havent ridden a motorcycle in almost 10 years.

[froze]

Please point out the law that you believe that Kurmann broke. Also please address this point: The truck started the right turn from the leftmost traffic lane, at the time when Kurmann was lawfully in the right lane. When is it okay for a vehicle to make a right turn from the leftmost lane, across other lanes of traffic? Perhaps it is okay when the only vehicles in the right lane are bicycles?

I didn't say she broke a law, what she broke was safety common sense for which there is no violation for. The lane for bicycles to be in was clearly marked, she needed to be there; she should should have taken the lane behind a vehicle instead alongside of one as she approaches an intersection; she was in a bus lane with signs posted as such, a lane also probably designed to give big trucks room to turn in a tight city intersection; she was going to fast for conditions; she was overtaking vehicles; she didn't pay attention to the turn signal of the truck; she was simply spaced out with no regard for her own safety, if you can't see that then out of hopes for you to stay alive while you're riding your bike please, PLEASE, ride only indoors so you too don't get killed!

SEE MY ABOVE POST

[cloudguy]

Anyway watch that film again and again and figure out what she should have done to stay alive so you can stay alive.

And yet the death here in CO seemed to happen on a straight road with apparently little traffic (no other witnesses, it seems) and a 3-foot passing law. The article implies that the word of the driver is accepted by the sheriff without question. My advice would be for riders to purchase a GoPro video camera or something similar so that your voice can be heard from beyond the grave in the unfortunate event of death-by-car.

[joosttx]

And yet the death here in CO seemed to happen on a straight road with apparently little traffic (no other witnesses, it seems) and a 3-foot passing law. The article implies that the word of the driver is accepted by the sheriff without question. My advice would be for riders to purchase a GoPro video camera or something similar so that your voice can be heard from beyond the grave in the unfortunate event of death-by-car.

Serious question: when you get on a bike do you ride in fear? The reason why I am asking is I cannot understand why I would engage in a hobby that made me fearful of injury. Cycling for me is about freedom. Not obtaining it or protecting it or defending it but freedom itself. If I took your viewpoint I dont think I would enjoy it. For example, I love basketball (really love to play it) but I dont play it anymore because the threat to injury is too great. What drives you to cycle when the threat of imminent death is on your mind?

[Gummee]

Please point out the law that you believe that Kurmann broke. Also please address this point: The truck started the right turn from the leftmost traffic lane, at the time when Kurmann was lawfully in the right lane. When is it okay for a vehicle to make a right turn from the leftmost lane, across other lanes of traffic? Perhaps it is okay when the only vehicles in the right lane are bicycles?

Having driven a semi-truck for the Army, you have to swing wide making right turns. If you don't, you end up dragging your trailer thru light posts, etc and possibly hitting buildings

M

[gdw]

And yet the death here in CO seemed to happen on a straight road with apparently little traffic (no other witnesses, it seems) and a 3-foot passing law. The article implies that the word of the driver is accepted by the sheriff without question.

That article implies nothing. The writer simply reported what was told to the responding officers or whoever he talked to. The subsequent investigation will reveal what actually happened. You've lived in this area long enough to know that cyclists can act erratically. Did you read the articles about that poor women who swerved into the car and was killed during the 2016 Boulder Ironman?

[Mark McM]

I didn't say she broke a law, what she broke was safety common sense for which there is no violation for. The lane for bicycles to be in was clearly marked, she needed to be there; she should should have taken the lane behind a vehicle instead alongside of one as she approaches an intersection; she was in a bus lane with signs posted as such, a lane also probably designed to give big trucks room to turn in a tight city intersection; she was going to fast for conditions; she was overtaking vehicles; she didn't pay attention to the turn signal of the truck; she was simply spaced out with no regard for her own safety, if you can't see that then out of hopes for you to stay alive while you're riding your bike please, PLEASE, ride only indoors so you too don't get killed!

SEE MY ABOVE POST

Well, one thing I think we can all agree on: This was poorly designed intersection. If you go to the Google Maps satellite view of this intersection today, you can see that the lane markers have been completely redesigned, with a totally segregated bike lane that goes all the way to the intersection. (Although Mass. Ave. is a busy road, the Mass. Ave. bridge is the only way to get between Cambridge and Boston in this part of town.)

[cloudguy]

Serious question: when you get on a bike do you ride in fear?

Absolutely not, and to be honest I most likely won't even take my own advice. Its more about justice, truth, and what those left behind (my wife and kids) would have to deal with, including the horrible phrasing of said news article.

[Gummee]

I don't ride with fear, but I do realize that there's no avoiding the 'golden bb' either.

M

[cloudguy]

The writer simply reported what was told to the responding officers or whoever he talked to.

If I were the reporter, I would ask the responding officers why they believe that the cyclist collided with (i.e., rode into) the truck, as opposed to the other way around. The article could then simply add a phrase like, "according to the driver of the vehicle", or "due to the fact...", as opposed to making it sound like the case is already closed. The article doesn't state if an investigation is on-going.

[joosttx]

Absolutely not, and to be honest I most likely won't even take my own advice. Its more about justice, truth, and what those left behind (my wife and kids) would have to deal with, including the horrible phrasing of said news article.

understood.
thanks.

[froze]

And yet the death here in CO seemed to happen on a straight road with apparently little traffic (no other witnesses, it seems) and a 3-foot passing law. The article implies that the word of the driver is accepted by the sheriff without question. My advice would be for riders to purchase a GoPro video camera or something similar so that your voice can be heard from beyond the grave in the unfortunate event of death-by-car.

Right, but there is no video to watch to analyze is there? But the reason I brought up the surgeon doc was because everyone is now interested in what and why it happened to the music doc and was no better time to try to educate riders on how to handle heavy city traffic and what to look out for.

I can't comment on the music doc because there is nothing to show what happened, and thus we cannot make a judgement call no matter what you think! There may be a 3 foot passing law but what if the music doc for some reason, perhaps something in the road he was trying to avoid hitting, and swerved using up the 3 feet and into the side of the truck? Perhaps there was curve and the truck already on the double yellow line, and it's against the law to cross a double yellow regardless of the 3 foot law which at that point the double yellow supersedes the 2 or 3 foot law.

"This law defines, for purposes of a vehicle overtaking and passing a bicycle, a safe distance to mean not less than three feet on a roadway that has a marked bicycle lane or a roadway without a marked bicycle lane if the roadway has a marked speed limit of 45 miles per hour or less and the roadway does not have a double yellow line separating cars from oncoming traffic indicating a no passing zone. This shall only apply when a cyclist is riding within two feet of the right shoulder of the roadway."

That above paragraph is how most states write their buffer law, motor vehicles cannot break a motor vehicle code to satisfy the cyclists rule, so under the double yellow line situation the cyclist law reverts back to the way it was prior to the law. And no law for cyclists is going to force cars to hold back for 40 miles (example only) following a bicycle at 14 mph because of the double yellow! I'm not saying that the trucker in the music doc death case was on a double yellow, I was just giving a what if.

Like I said before I kind of doubt that we will get all the information on the music doc's death, but again the police felt it was an accident, plain and simple, no need to hang the driver for it. We're not going to find out for awhile what really happened in the music doc's death because the accident is still officially under investigation.

[froze]

If I were the reporter, I would ask the responding officers why they believe that the cyclist collided with (i.e., rode into) the truck, as opposed to the other way around. The article could then simply add a phrase like, "according to the driver of the vehicle", or "due to the fact...", as opposed to making it sound like the case is already closed. The article doesn't state if an investigation is on-going.

Why does it matter how it was worded? you're just dealing with semantics. yes the accident is under investigation.

[froze]

And yet the death here in CO seemed to happen on a straight road with apparently little traffic (no other witnesses, it seems) and a 3-foot passing law. The article implies that the word of the driver is accepted by the sheriff without question. My advice would be for riders to purchase a GoPro video camera or something similar so that your voice can be heard from beyond the grave in the unfortunate event of death-by-car.

You, nor I, can at this point say what happened because we have nothing to go on. There may have a 3 foot law, but if there was a double yellow line on that road then the 3 foot law doesn't apply because it's against vehicle code for a vehicle to cross a double yellow line regardless of a 3 foot bicycle law, and in the circumstance of a double yellow the 3 foot law goes away on that stretch of road. I also didn't read what the speed limit was on that section of the road, what if it was 55, did the suction of the truck passing suck the music doc into the side of the truck even though the driver had the 3 feet distance?

The article does not imply anything, what's implied is the reporter took notes down as the sheriff dictated those notes, nothing more or less, again you're letting your emotions get the best of you.

I did catch one thing, the trucker was 71 years old, as you age your depth perception worsens, he may have thought he had the 3 foot distance when in fact he didn't, if that's the case it's a good enough reason to support what I've said for years that large commercial vehicles should be limited to drivers 65 years old or less just as commercial pilots have, but we have drivers in their 90's driving! I think that stupidly absurd. There maybe a driver shortage but to have someone driving a big rig past the age of 65 is asking for trouble. Last month a big rig driver who was 86 years old died while driving his truck and crashed, fortunately he crashed into a ditch and not taking out a bunch of cars with him. Older drivers are more prone to falling asleep while driving too.

Driver shortage can be cured by paying more money and getting drivers more down time, but of course those increased transportation costs will be filtered down into everything we buy in the store but it maybe worth it.

A Go Pro may or may not have been helpful if the angle of the camera failed to get the action filmed correctly. Personally meaning me, myself and I, don't care about getting killed and knowing whether or not the guy that hit me gets prosecuted assuming he did anything wrong, I'm dead, prosecuting or not isn't going to change my condition, so a Go Pro is something that just doesn't interest me.

[oldpotatoe]

[QUOTE]And yet the death here in CO seemed to happen on a straight road with apparently little traffic (no other witnesses, it seems) and a 3-foot passing law. The article implies that the word of the driver is accepted by the sheriff without question.

Gotta wonder if she got to close to the trucks wheels and went under. Going the same direction and hitting the side of the truck doesn't result in 'multiple blunt force injuries', I wouldn't think...

As for the 3 foot 'law' in Colorado..drive on South Boulder Road, going west, around Alfalfa's, in the 'bike lane' and tell me how many cars move over as they pass..:eek: Another unenforceable, 'feel good' law in CO..like no texting while driving..

[Gummee]

[QUOTE=cloudguy;2415720]


Gotta wonder if she got to close to the trucks wheels and went under. Going the same direction and hitting the side of the truck doesn't result in 'multiple blunt force injuries', I wouldn't think...

As for the 3 foot 'law' in Colorado..drive on South Boulder Road, going west, around Alfalfa's, in the 'bike lane' and tell me how many cars move over as they pass..:eek: Another unenforceable, 'feel good' law in CO..like no texting while driving..

I've ridden up the shoulder of rt 36 outta Boulder a fair few times, Ditto with the roads from Lyons and south.

Very few people observing the 3' law

I've got the same problem here in Nokesville, VA. Shame really

M

[froze]

[QUOTE=cloudguy;2415720]


Gotta wonder if she got to close to the trucks wheels and went under. Going the same direction and hitting the side of the truck doesn't result in 'multiple blunt force injuries', I wouldn't think...

As for the 3 foot 'law' in Colorado..drive on South Boulder Road, going west, around Alfalfa's, in the 'bike lane' and tell me how many cars move over as they pass..:eek: Another unenforceable, 'feel good' law in CO..like no texting while driving..

Where I live in Indiana we have a 3 foot law and about 1/2 the cars will move over, I've even had police cars pass closer to me then 3 feet! But you know what? I don't care! I've ridden for over 40 years without that sort of law, and cars passing that close quite simply doesn't bother me. Yeah, I know, I'm weird.

[oldpotatoe]

[QUOTE=oldpotatoe;2416049]

Where I live in Indiana we have a 3 foot law and about 1/2 the cars will move over, I've even had police cars pass closer to me then 3 feet! But you know what? I don't care! I've ridden for over 40 years without that sort of law, and cars passing that close quite simply doesn't bother me. Yeah, I know, I'm weird.

Yer not weird, it really doesn't bother me either...I DID get a blinky tho..some lady in a van dusted me off..I rode up next to her at a light, asked her to maybe 'give me a foot'(her right tires were on my side of the white line)...'Lo siento mucho'..'I didn't see you'....BUT they still don't move over, at all..:eek:

[froze]

[QUOTE=froze;2416061]

Yer not weird, it really doesn't bother me either...I DID get a blinky tho..some lady in a van dusted me off..I rode up next to her at a light, asked her to maybe 'give me a foot'(her right tires were on my side of the white line)...'Lo siento mucho'..'I didn't see you'....BUT they still don't move over, at all..:eek:

I also decided to buy a 75 lumen tail light and run it during the day on pulse mode while riding on surface streets and county roads about 8 or so years ago when distracted driving became all the rage.

I still get a laugh out of people who scream out their car windows as they pass me that bicycles don't belong on the road!! I can't believe how ignorant people are. You would think after taking drivers ed and passing the written exam, seeing signs that say "share the road" they would know just how stupid they sound.

[Gummee]

[QUOTE=oldpotatoe;2416069]

I also decided to buy a 75 lumen tail light and run it during the day on pulse mode while riding on surface streets and county roads about 8 or so years ago when distracted driving became all the rage.

I still get a laugh out of people who scream out their car windows as they pass me that bicycles don't belong on the road!! I can't believe how ignorant people are. You would think after taking drivers ed and passing the written exam, seeing signs that say "share the road" they would know just how stupid they sound.

Nope. They're secure in their knowledge of 'what's right.' That doesn't include anything other than cars and trucks on the road.

At least around here, they haven't broken out the 'bicyclists don't pay road taxes' crap yet

M

[oldpotatoe]

[QUOTE=froze;2416071]

Nope. They're secure in their knowledge of 'what's right.' That doesn't include anything other than cars and trucks on the road.

At least around here, they haven't broken out the 'bicyclists don't pay road taxes' crap yet

M

Maybe a poll..how many here don't own a car(and then pay road taxes)..Here in the republic, bike use as a sole means of transportation is teeny, tiny...

[froze]

[QUOTE=Gummee;2416073]

Maybe a poll..how many here don't own a car(and then pay road taxes)..Here in the republic, bike use as a sole means of transportation is teeny, tiny...

I own several cars so my poll won't count, but I do hear cyclists complain that not enough taxes are being spent on bike lanes and paths...fine, I proposed a one time 10% flat tax that would be taken at every sale of a new bike, children bikes included, and as an added benefit you would have your bike registered on a national database incase it ever got stolen you might have a chance to get it recovered. And that 10% tax would go only towards paths and lanes, but I got a lot of flak on that, but why? people want others to sacrifice what taxes they spend for other things to get diverted to the cycling community, in other words, cyclists don't want to put their money where their mouths are! Why should others have their tax dollars diverted to pay for something so few people use? Only on average across the US about 5.2% of the population uses bike paths and lanes, that's because on average the US lies mostly in a cold belt area, sure usage percentage goes way up in parts of California but that's only one state and even with Ca in the mix it's still only 5.2% of the population, maybe global warming will change that over time.

Believe it or not a 10% flat tax would add a lot of money into the coffers for bike lanes and paths. The cost of the average bike path per mile is $130,000 and it ranges from $5,000 to $535,000 per mile depending on location and difficulty; that's a lot of money. Now figure in that about 20 million bikes are sold each year, the average bike sale is $350 which if I did my math right that equates to 700 million dollars a year that could be collected with 10% tax, that's 14 million per year per state average; of course those states that sell more bikes get more money and less bikes less money which only makes sense.

I know what I said will make people angry, but darn it, if you want a system in place for bicycles you need to pay for it and not allow money to be taken from other needed resources to make it happen so you don't incur a direct cost. That is the mentality of a entitlement society we have today, you want all this stuff but don't want to pay for it, someone else should pay for your wants. OUCH, I got go and get into my bomb proof shelter after that comment!

[tombtfslpk]

Right, but there is no video to watch to analyze is there? But the reason I brought up the surgeon doc was because everyone is now interested in what and why it happened to the music doc and was no better time to try to educate riders on how to handle heavy city traffic and what to look out for.

I can't comment on the music doc because there is nothing to show what happened, and thus we cannot make a judgement call no matter what you think! There may be a 3 foot passing law but what if the music doc for some reason, perhaps something in the road he was trying to avoid hitting, and swerved using up the 3 feet and into the side of the truck? Perhaps there was curve and the truck already on the double yellow line, and it's against the law to cross a double yellow regardless of the 3 foot law which at that point the double yellow supersedes the 2 or 3 foot law.

"This law defines, for purposes of a vehicle overtaking and passing a bicycle, a safe distance to mean not less than three feet on a roadway that has a marked bicycle lane or a roadway without a marked bicycle lane if the roadway has a marked speed limit of 45 miles per hour or less and the roadway does not have a double yellow line separating cars from oncoming traffic indicating a no passing zone. This shall only apply when a cyclist is riding within two feet of the right shoulder of the roadway."

That above paragraph is how most states write their buffer law, motor vehicles cannot break a motor vehicle code to satisfy the cyclists rule, so under the double yellow line situation the cyclist law reverts back to the way it was prior to the law. And no law for cyclists is going to force cars to hold back for 40 miles (example only) following a bicycle at 14 mph because of the double yellow! I'm not saying that the trucker in the music doc death case was on a double yellow, I was just giving a what if.

Like I said before I kind of doubt that we will get all the information on the music doc's death, but again the police felt it was an accident, plain and simple, no need to hang the driver for it. We're not going to find out for awhile what really happened in the music doc's death because the accident is still officially under investigation.
I understand I'm drifting off topic here. But I feel the need to address some segments of your statement. Motorists already disrespect cyclists enough as it is without spreading conflicting information regarding the interaction between the two.
I'm sure that in YOUR State your information MAY be correct. It certainly follows conventional wisdom. It is not correct information for ALL States.
In my State, Georgia, a bicycle operates on a public road using the same rules as a motorized vehicle. If a road has a double yellow line and you cannot safely pass.....you don't pass PERIOD. The applies to bicycles, road scooters, farm tractors, etc. We do not have a State Law regarding the obstruction of traffic either.
Relevant section from Ga. drivers manual:
Bicyclists have the same rights and responsibilities on the road as motorists. Bicyclists are permitted to travel in the center of the traffic lane if there are safety hazards on the right side of the road (such as parked cars or debris) or if the lane is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to share. Pass bicyclists with caution, treating them as you would any other vehicle and according to Georgia law. The law requires a driver to allow at least three feet between the driver and bicyclist when passing. If it is not safe to leave three feet of space, the driver should wait until it is safe to pass the bicyclist. Bicycle lanes are not passing lanes and should never be used to pass another motor vehicle.
Ga. three foot Law:http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20112012/116723.pdf
You did say most States, perhaps that is correct where you reside.

[tombtfslpk]

[QUOTE=oldpotatoe;2416049]

Where I live in Indiana we have a 3 foot law and about 1/2 the cars will move over, I've even had police cars pass closer to me then 3 feet! But you know what? I don't care! I've ridden for over 40 years without that sort of law, and cars passing that close quite simply doesn't bother me. Yeah, I know, I'm weird.
I've been "buzzed" by police cars also. They were probably phoning, texting, or typing at the time. After all, it's legal for them to drive distracted here. Also, around here, if you are riding a bicycle to the right of the "fog line" you're not considered to be in the traffic lane and the three foot law doesn't apply.

[froze]

I understand I'm drifting off topic here. But I feel the need to address some segments of your statement. Motorists already disrespect cyclists enough as it is without spreading conflicting information regarding the interaction between the two.
I'm sure that in YOUR State your information MAY be correct. It certainly follows conventional wisdom. It is not correct information for ALL States.
In my State, Georgia, a bicycle operates on a public road using the same rules as a motorized vehicle. If a road has a double yellow line and you cannot safely pass.....you don't pass PERIOD. The applies to bicycles, road scooters, farm tractors, etc. We do not have a State Law regarding the obstruction of traffic either.
Relevant section from Ga. drivers manual:
Bicyclists have the same rights and responsibilities on the road as motorists. Bicyclists are permitted to travel in the center of the traffic lane if there are safety hazards on the right side of the road (such as parked cars or debris) or if the lane is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to share. Pass bicyclists with caution, treating them as you would any other vehicle and according to Georgia law. The law requires a driver to allow at least three feet between the driver and bicyclist when passing. If it is not safe to leave three feet of space, the driver should wait until it is safe to pass the bicyclist. Bicycle lanes are not passing lanes and should never be used to pass another motor vehicle.
Ga. three foot Law:http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20112012/116723.pdf
You did say most States, perhaps that is correct where you reside.

I hear you, some states are different, I had intended to put that in my statement but forgot in my haste, sorry. I also didn't have the time to check all 52 states to check on their rules, in addition to all of that it's almost impossible to get up to date information unless you go directly to the each states motor vehicle site, I wasn't going to take the time to that.

Maybe you could take the time and see how that rule(s) relates to all of us here!?

[zap]

Edit

[QUOTE=froze;2416061]
Also, around here, if you are riding a bicycle to the right of the "fog line" you're not considered to be in the traffic lane and the three foot law doesn't apply.

That's interesting. When I ride solo I typically ride the 4" (give or take) to the right of the fog line.

If memory serves, in Maryland the motorway is surface edge to edge. Now that I live in NC I will need to check on that.

[tombtfslpk]

I hear you, some states are different, I had intended to put that in my statement but forgot in my haste, sorry. I also didn't have the time to check all 52 states to check on their rules, in addition to all of that it's almost impossible to get up to date information unless you go directly to the each states motor vehicle site, I wasn't going to take the time to that.

Maybe you could take the time and see how that rule(s) relates to all of us here!?

I understand perfectly, but I'll have to bow out on checking all 52 states (Rip Van Winkle moment) laws.
I'm too lazy to qualify the 30ish (?) state laws on three foot passing.:eek:
It's tough enough to keep up on the three or four States I do occasionally ride in.

[justindcady]

Here's a question that just popped into my head:
How much of the getting hit/swiped/buzzed is as the result of too few people looking farther out than their front bumper when driving (among texting and other forms of being distracted along with general disregard for that fact that there is an actual person on said bike)?

When that came to mind, I immediately thought about the cyclist I saw this morning on my way to work that had to have been at least 1/4mile ahead of me at the first point of establishing "a visual" on them. It sure as heck wasn't because I happen to be a cyclist myself, but an attentive driver who's always trying to keep a sense of awareness of what's around/ahead/behind me.

[Gummee]

Here's a question that just popped into my head:
How much of the getting hit/swiped/buzzed is as the result of too few people looking farther out than their front bumper when driving (among texting and other forms of being distracted along with general disregard for that fact that there is an actual person on said bike)?

When that came to mind, I immediately thought about the cyclist I saw this morning on my way to work that had to have been at least 1/4mile ahead of me at the first point of establishing "a visual" on them. It sure as heck wasn't because I happen to be a cyclist myself, but an attentive driver who's always trying to keep a sense of awareness of what's around/ahead/behind me.

Since 'I didn't see them' seems to be a valid excuse, why look up?!

M

[Ozz]

I had an interesting experience this morning driving to work....

I was leaving the street I live on and need to make a left turn onto an arterial...the arterial has bike lanes in both directions.

I was at the stop sign....did my "left - right - left" head turns looking for traffic and saw none. Proceeded to turn left....

As I did, I look back to my right...I thought to myself: "Oh *****!! There is a bicyclist there! How did I not see him???

I merged into my lane, and he was in the bike lane, so there was no collision, but I knew that if I was in his shoes I would be thinking "This a$$ is going to hit me!"

As I proceeded on, I looked at the cyclist in my review mirror: black helmet, grey jersey, dim non-flashing headlight (looked like batteries were dying)...

What I took away from this (aside from my own responsibility to do better as a driver) was how important it is as a cyclist to do what you can to be visible to drivers, and to ride like you are invisible.

Cheers.

[pbarry]

Late to this thread as I don't always click on the bad news. The collision was in my town. That stretch of road, between 287 and Mountain/Rd 8 is scetchy for cyclists--"bike lane" north of Bunyan is 10-12" wide with a 2" drop on to loose chip seal if you waver away from traffic. I have stopped where the bike lane narrows going south bound, until there was no traffic coming from behind. 55mph speed limit. According to the linked article, the bike hit the passenger door. Only way that makes sense to me is if the TT made a late left turn off Bunyan, (where a new development is going up), and the cyclist t-boned the truck. Really hard to brake on the loose stuff if the truck swung wide into his path. Arm chair supposition, and not blaming anyone. White bike marking the site.

[tomato coupe]

There may have a 3 foot law, but if there was a double yellow line on that road then the 3 foot law doesn't apply because it's against vehicle code for a vehicle to cross a double yellow line regardless of a 3 foot bicycle law, and in the circumstance of a double yellow the 3 foot law goes away on that stretch of road.

In the absence of oncoming traffic, it's legal to cross a double yellow to pass a cyclist in Colorado.

[Scuzzer]

In the absence of oncoming traffic, it's legal to cross a double yellow to pass a cyclist in Colorado.

Wish more people knew about that. I've been yelled at plenty of times when they could have passed me while barely crossing the lines and still giving me 3' plus. Sometimes I just think people want to yell at someone or something.

As a driver my worst experience was pulling out of a neighborhood street at night and checking both directions only to find a guy riding the wrong way on the bike lane coming my way. I braked hard, he swerved to miss me and gave me the one finger salute. I was like "holy ****, I'm on your side but you've got to help me"

[froze]

Wish more people knew about that. I've been yelled at plenty of times when they could have passed me while barely crossing the lines and still giving me 3' plus. Sometimes I just think people want to yell at someone or something.

As a driver my worst experience was pulling out of a neighborhood street at night and checking both directions only to find a guy riding the wrong way on the bike lane coming my way. I braked hard, he swerved to miss me and gave me the one finger salute. I was like "holy ****, I'm on your side but you've got to help me"

I guess I was wrong, but I did read that on the internet that it was illegal to cross a double yellow to pass a slower vehicle, but as I read some other states it's legal or not mentioned which means they will allow it too as long as it's done safely, and that is the key word-safely.

[tombtfslpk]

I guess I was wrong, but I did read that on the internet that it was illegal to cross a double yellow to pass a slower vehicle, but as I read some other states it's legal or not mentioned which means they will allow it too as long as it's done safely, and that is the key word-safely.
Safely.....exactly.
Motorists are in such a rush to get somewhere, that Cyclists seem to be just another road annoyance. Out here in the boondocks where I live, motorists are more attentive to deer, cyclists get treated like another squirrel, opossum, or armadillo. We need to avoid them, not the other way around. Fortunately, we have miles of road with very low traffic volume. You just may need to run the gauntlet to get there.

[paredown]

In the absence of oncoming traffic, it's legal to cross a double yellow to pass a cyclist in Colorado.

Not sure what our State rules are, but if you are going to pass anyways--why not leave some more room?

I sometimes feel like drivers had it drilled into them 'no crossing the double line to pass'--and forget that there is a judgement call involved--why not swing wide if you can see--oh, and BTW, if you can't see the oncoming traffic, maybe wait for a microsecond before passing?

I'm pretty much only on the local two lane 'country' roads around home--about 1 in three drivers will swing wide and give me loads of room, about 1 in 5 will actually brake for a moment to let an oncoming car clear before passing. The rest will squeeze past, often foot to the floor. Posted speed limit is 30--drivers are all going 40-50 since there is no speed enforcement.

Oddly though, when the obstacle is larger--then they do the whip-around at speed--for the mail trucks, garbage trucks or anything else that is in "their" lane--often forcing oncoming traffic to brake for them when doing so.

My conclusion is that they have no empathy, and it is 'me first' plus absolutely no understanding of what it feels like being a pedestrian or a cyclist when a car passes too close, so they just don't bother leaving any room. I think that if I were a novice cyclist, I would not want to ride on the road ever.

[justindcady]

Since 'I didn't see them' seems to be a valid excuse, why look up?!

M

That's EXACTLY how my kids and I got hit at an intersection about a year and a half ago. I was pulling them up the park in a Burlee trailer. Had the right of way to cross straight in the pedestrian lane. Oncoming car making a left never freaking looked up past his hood. "I never saw you" were his exact words. My reply? "Yes...because you never looked up". I was in a bright as hell red and white kit and the trailer was bumble bee yellow. Having your eyes at least in the general direction of us and he would've seen us in his peripheral.

Geezus...people need to put their phones down and look where they are going. Not where they are.

[Gummee]

That's EXACTLY how my kids and I got hit at an intersection about a year and a half ago. I was pulling them up the park in a Burlee trailer. Had the right of way to cross straight in the pedestrian lane. Oncoming car making a left never freaking looked up past his hood. "I never saw you" were his exact words. My reply? "Yes...because you never looked up". I was in a bright as hell red and white kit and the trailer was bumble bee yellow. Having your eyes at least in the general direction of us and he would've seen us in his peripheral.

Geezus...people need to put their phones down and look where they are going. Not where they are.

Being a moto rider as well, I can look down into cars as I'm passing. You wouldn't believe what I see.

Even just driving in traffic, I swear no one looks past the taillights of the car in front of them. That light that's 1/4mi up the road just turned yellow. Let's haul assets to get there! May turn green!

M

[froze]

Geezus...people need to put their phones down and look where they are going. Not where they are.

Great idea but it's never going to happen until enough people that have had enough of inattentive driving idiots get petitions signed that would make it mandatory for all cell phones to power off once the phone's built in GPS system realizes the phone is moving faster than 20 or 25 mph, and until that degree of mad has been reached people will die or get severely injured due to inattentive drivers. Look if a group of moms that organized and called themselves MADD and got laws passed to severely punish drunk drivers then all it takes is the same sort of thing to happen for cell phones. Getting tickets for using a cell phone is nothing, they can hide the phone from site, and most places that have those laws the cops don't enforce it. All phones have a GPS system built in and it can easily be used to shut down the phone for both texting or calling.

[oldpotatoe]

Great idea but it's never going to happen until enough people that have had enough of inattentive driving idiots get petitions signed that would make it mandatory for all cell phones to power off once the phone's built in GPS system realizes the phone is moving faster than 20 or 25 mph, and until that degree of mad has been reached people will die or get severely injured due to inattentive drivers. Look if a group of moms that organized and called themselves MADD and got laws passed to severely punish drunk drivers then all it takes is the same sort of thing to happen for cell phones. Getting tickets for using a cell phone is nothing, they can hide the phone from site, and most places that have those laws the cops don't enforce it. All phones have a GPS system built in and it can easily be used to shut down the phone for both texting or calling.

BUT said it before..the telecommunications industry has DEEEP pockets and are free to bribe many, man congress-people via 'campaign contributions' and other bribes so a 'law' to make this happen will NEVER be written, let alone passed by these spineless slugs in DC called 'congress'..
The technology exists or is way easy..just not gonna happen. :help:

[froze]

BUT said it before..the telecommunications industry has DEEEP pockets and are free to bribe many, man congress-people via 'campaign contributions' and other bribes so a 'law' to make this happen will NEVER be written, let alone passed by these spineless slugs in DC called 'congress'..
The technology exists or is way easy..just not gonna happen. :help:

That's right! But people could make a stand and make it difficult for those deep pocket people to go forward especially once the politicians who won't support such a bill are voted out and ones that would support it are voted in. But here's the dirty little secret...MOST cyclists don't want to see their phone liberties taken away while driving!! I had this same discussion on another forum and a most of the members complained about having their phones locked out while driving even though a lot of those same ones were complaining about distracted driving were injuring and killing cyclists. Their answer was issue tickets, but I know for a fact tickets don't work because most cops won't issue a citation for those that use their phones while driving. It's a stupid stupid world we live in. This is why self driving cars are becoming all the rage, even though I think the technology is a good 20 years away from being perfected and shouldn't be allowed on the road till it is; but we've had self driving cars kill cyclists already, so that's not going to work either.

[David Tollefson]

"We fight the fire
While we're feeding the flame."

[oldpotatoe]

That's right! But people could make a stand and make it difficult for those deep pocket people to go forward especially once the politicians who won't support such a bill are voted out and ones that would support it are voted in. But here's the dirty little secret...MOST cyclists don't want to see their phone liberties taken away while driving!! I had this same discussion on another forum and a most of the members complained about having their phones locked out while driving even though a lot of those same ones were complaining about distracted driving were injuring and killing cyclists. Their answer was issue tickets, but I know for a fact tickets don't work because most cops won't issue a citation for those that use their phones while driving. It's a stupid stupid world we live in. This is why self driving cars are becoming all the rage, even though I think the technology is a good 20 years away from being perfected and shouldn't be allowed on the road till it is; but we've had self driving cars kill cyclists already, so that's not going to work either.

You can say that twice, twice. I'm with ya brother...:cool: