Crashes and how it is always the cyclists fault

(Photo: Wash. Co. Sheriff)
A crash occurred in Washington County, OR. I used to live in that county. A pickup plowed into three cyclists from the rear on NW West Union Road about 1/2 mile east of the intersection with Jackson Quarry Road. Immediately the blame patrol works to blame the victims. Even with the picture to the right where one of the mountainbikes was embedded in the grill of the truck.

So we have a rear end collision. If it were a motor vehicle crash, the guy hitting from the rear is automatically at fault, but with bicycles it is all about how to blame the victim. Even though the pickup was going too fast for his headlights and driving too fast for conditions (by definition, he hit three cyclists). Everyone is already upset that the cyclists didn't have lights. Now sure, they probably should have, but they aren't required to and there is evidence that it wouldn't have made a difference. Because the driver hit THREE cyclists, one hard enough to embed the bike into the grill of his vehicle.

I understand why cyclists would want to review the situation to address what they could do better. But in no way should that have impact on who is at fault. The law is clear, cyclists are required to have rear reflectors. The bikes had those reflectors and studies have shown that reflectors are often better than lights in the cases where auto lights are very bright and wash out rear lights of the bike. With many cars running super bright LEDs now, it is important to have some reflectors facing backward. Reflectors are brighter under bright lights.

In the end the motorist outran his headlights or was not paying attention. Given the impact evident in the picture I suspect he wasn't paying attention. I am infuriated that the cyclists are in critical condition and paying the price for the motorists error. Additionally I can't abide how everyone wants to blame the cyclists who are the victims and give the motorist the benefit of the doubt. Our legal system posits innocent until proven guilty, but that doesn't mean that our outrage and frustration are required to wait for proof as well.


(source: bikeportland)

Cyclist run down - possible vehicular serial killer.

So I looked at my RSS feed this morning and found this headline "Encino cyclist killed in Leucadia; local TV speculates an attempted vehicular serial killer could be at work". Wonderful. I follow the linke and find out that there have been two cyclists run down in the same stretch of road both by a Ford pickup and both hit and run. To quote one of the articles:
San Diego County Sheriff's Department investigators are looking into the possibility that the driver did not stop because he wanted to hit the bicyclist.


Nasty.

Then I read the comments. Ugh.

First we have the Blame the victim style where it is just too dangerous to ride:
jaxd

What was the bicyclist doing riding on the road @ 1:00am? Not excusing the hit and run but common sense tell one that at that time there are DUI's on the road and it is not safe to be riding on the shoulder.

BikeAversion

When Americans would have to learn that riding a bike along cars is dangerous! Is like playing Russian roulette!!

Both offensive and inaccurate (riding a bike is safer than driving in terms of deaths/million hours).

But the real cake is the other two idiots (the story is only hours old so only 15 comments so far).
Huge:

How come these fools in tights dont obey traffic laws, if they did, this probably wouldn't happen

Huge:

maybe they should "Share the Road" and this stuff wouldn't happen. Take a drive down 101, you'll see what I'm talking about

Capn Crunch:

Let me guess. Was the bicyclist riding just on the painted line of the bike-lane, even though there was about 2.5 feet of bike-lane available? O,r riding side-by-side with another cyclist, instead of single-file? Just to make the cars slow down and go around, instead of co-inhabiting the road? Just asking...

I can't stand hate-mongers like this. It saddens me and my suspicion is that the posters are road ragers who threaten cyclists in real life. It makes my blood boil

A comparision of two incidents involving cyclists and motorists.

First up we have Portland, OR. Considered the front runner in the US for positive treatment of cyclists.

From: bikeportland.org

A Multnomah County Grand Jury decided today that 63-year old Candice Palmer — the woman who told police investigators she reached into her back seat to tend to her dog and then struck and seriously injured a man who was bicycling on SW Multnomah Blvd — should not face criminal charges.

Palmer's car swerved into 20-year old Reese Wilson while he rode home from work on the 6100 block of SW Multnomah Blvd on February 4th. Palmer had her dog in the car and reportedly looked into the rear seat where the dog was just prior to the collision. After hitting Wilson, Palmer's car ran through a fence and came to rest on the side of a house.

Note: the man (20-year-old Reese Wilson) who was injured died in the hospital.

So a elderly woman confessed that she drove with extreme negligence, then killed a man riding a bike and then drove into a house. The Grand Jury in Multnomah decided that this didn't rise to the level necessary to charge the woman with a crime. The comments on articles spent most of their time arguing about helmets for cyclists rather than any comments on the motorist responsibility.

Here is a sample of the first few comments posted on this story at KATU news

comment 2: They don't believe the rider was wearing a helmet. That's crazy these days. Thank GOD that I wear a helmet.
comment 3:It will be interesting to see what was the cause of this. Not faulting the cyclist at all..Could have been clipped when the car went out off the road.Of course not wearing a helmet wasn't the brightest thing either.
comment 4:Stupid Bikes! Stay off the street!

As you can see, all three put blame on the cyclist.
Here is the picture of the car post incident:


Now listen and view this video about an incident where a driver ran into 4 teens at an intersection and caused only minor injuries. Pay attention to the media and public reaction.


The difference is night and day.

Cycling and helmets

Helmets discussions bring out the worst in people. You can find people saying things like "Maybe he (the cyclist) doesn’t want to waste good money on his useless brain!" when discussing the most innocuous video of cycling. Helmet advocates get quite upset even at helmets that are worn but not tight enough. They bring all sorts of arguments to the table.

My own helmet use has been spotty. While discussing this issue with some friends I remembered that when I lived in Munich I didn't wear a helmet. In fact I don't think I wore a cycling helmet at all until 2000 even though I have been cycling regularly since 1975. After I bought my first helmets in Oregon when I moved back to the US I wore it 90% of the time. Though I refuse to wear a helmet while doing maintenance on my bike and test riding it in a parking lot or around my block.

Even when rock climbing I haven't been 100% on helmet use. I used my helmet mostly when climbing longer trad climbs or even three pitch trad climbs but for sport climbing I often didn't wear a helmet. In fact when climbing I often found I bumped my head quite a bit more when wearing the helmet.


I have to admit that though I do wear my helmet regularly now, if I didn't have too, I probably wouldn't. It is very convenient not to have to carry this ungainly artifact. And I like to use my bikes for getting around, not just for events, charity rides and racing. And the arguments you often hear about how little you value your brain are easily disarmed when you realize the person talking to you isn't wearing a helmet while engaged in the dangerous activity of going down stairs, crossing the street, or driving their car. All of which have higher fatality rates then cycling measured as deaths/hour of activity.