Cyclist Killed on My Route

[REWahoo]

I believe there are more country roads like this than not.

True, but this particular 'country road' is the famous California Highway 101...

 

[haha]

True, but this particular 'country road' is the famous California Highway 101...

Thanks, I missed that. What the heck are cyclists doing on HiWay 101 anyway? US 2 in WA has some similar stretches. Cycling is dangerous around high speed traffic, and too often around low speed traffic. I got hit in my car on a similar road, and I am still here. Different story if I had been on my bicycle.

Ha

 

[Bikerdude]

So sorry to hear about this.

I can't bring myself to ride on roads with regular car traffic. I stick to bike paths and state park roads.

+3. Too many distracted drivers for me.

 

[CoolChange]

As a fellow cyclist, thanks for sending the letter.

+1

 

[ERD50]

... What the heck are cyclists doing on HiWay 101 anyway? US 2 in WA has some similar stretches. Cycling is dangerous around high speed traffic, and too often around low speed traffic.

Ha

Agreed - there's something odd about this thread, a cyclist talking about how dangerous this road is for cyclists, and they know it's dangerous because they ride there? Well then don't ride there. FYI: I can't see the pic in your first post, you have to be logged in to that forum.

It's hard to describe how it feels to be riding in these locations and having a truck passing you at 65 MPH. Some trucks will move into the center lane, but most do not.

Maybe I'm missing something, but that isn't an actual bike-lane on the road is it? It looks like just a shoulder. I gotta be honest, I absolutely hate it when bikes ride along the shoulder of the road. If there's traffic coming, I can't move over, and they end up a foot or two away from my car. I hate the thought that if I have to make a quick move, I might kill them. And this might sound harsh, but if I have to make a split second choice between hitting a car coming at me at 55 mph in the opposite direction head on, I'm gonna swerve and if there is a cyclist there, their gonna get hurt, maybe killed. But I would certainly be dead in a head on like that. Don't make me make that choice. It makes me super-nervous, I keep thinking, what if they hit a rock and fall right into the path of my car and I kill or maim them? I absolutely hate being put in that position, and I resent that they do it. If the place isn't safe to cycle in, then don't do it. It's not fair to drivers. Or to para-phrase the above quote:

It's hard to describe how it feels to be driving in these locations and having a truck passing you at 65 MPH, and there's a cyclist riding the shoulder. Some cyclists will move over and get further off the road, but most do not.

I feel the same about pedestrians that walk at dusk/dawn or night w/o highly visible clothing or lights. It's one thing if they put themselves at risk, but don't make me complicit in it if something happens, and I have to live with that the rest of my life, just because I don't have super-human see-in-the-dark eyesight.

If they were to create an actual bike lane there, with adequate space, I would view it differently. Related question - do cyclists in CA pay a road tax, or some other licence fee that goes to pay for the kind of upgrades that bike lanes would require?

-ERD50

 

[Gumby]

Maybe I'm missing something, but that isn't an actual bike-lane on the road is it? It looks like just a shoulder. I gotta be honest, I absolutely hate it when bikes ride along the shoulder of the road. If there's traffic coming, I can't move over, and they end up a foot or two away from my car. I hate the thought that if I have to make a quick move, I might kill them. And this might sound harsh, but if I have to make a split second choice between hitting a car coming at me at 55 mph in the opposite direction head on, I'm gonna swerve and if there is a cyclist there, their gonna get hurt, maybe killed.

Guess what, Sparky? A bicycle has as much legal right to the road as you do. If it is not safe to pass, slow down and stay behind them until it is.

 

[Brat]

I am amazed that more cyclists (motor & pedal) are not killed on 101 in Oregon. Add the fact that the highways was constructed in the 30s (or earlier), locals who want to get to their destination in a hurry and tourists focusing on the view... formula for disaster.

 

[ERD50]

Guess what, Sparky? A bicycle has as much legal right to the road as you do. If it is not safe to pass, slow down and stay behind them until it is.

It may be legal, but it's still dangerous, and rude to the drivers.

From the Illinois "BICYCLE RULES OF THE ROAD - CyberDrive Illinois"

• Motorists are required by law to allow at least 3 feet of space between them and a bicyclist when passing.

So that means if there is a cyclist riding just at the edge of the road, and I'm in a long no-passing zone (common around me), I have to slow down to a cycle-speed for miles if I can't give them 3 feet. I risk getting rear-ended, or the victim of road rage.

Or even in a passing zone, if there is steady stream of on-coming traffic, if I slow down and do not pass that cyclist, I'm gonna have a string of angry drivers behind me, and again risk getting rear-ended. Or I'm supposed to come within inches of the on-coming traffic?

Even with three feet, I get nervous. As I said, they hit a rock, and fall and tumble into the street, that could happen too fast for me to respond. I'd hate the thought that I was somehow involved, even through no fault of my own, of killing/maiming someone. And then maybe some ambulance chaser sues me because my running light was burned out or something unrelated, who knows where it goes?

Sorry, I've just seen too many cyclists (sometimes whole families) create dangerous situations for others, and they do make me very nervous. I wish, for their safety and the safety of others, that they would limit their riding to places that are reasonably safe. IMO, most roads w/o specific bike lanes are not a safe place to mingle these vehicles, regardless of any laws.

-ERD50

 

[MichaelB]

Nice letter, T-Al.

 

[M Paquette]

For those wondering why bicyclists don't just use another route, there ain't one. At the northern end of California, US 101 is it when traveling between many towns. It's not a freeway. It's a narrow road, one lane in each direction, and the only road for many miles.

Oh, and if you're checking on a map, 'roads' like Georgia-Pacific Truck Road are dirt roads for logging trucks, not open for public access, and a great way to get killed. X-(

 

[Ronstar]

For those wondering why bicyclists don't just use another route, there ain't one. (

+1. The nearest bike lane from my house is more than 25 miles away. The nearest trail starts 12 miles away. So I almost always ride in a vehicle lane, trying to take the safest routes at the safest times. Luckily traffic is usually light where a vehicle can easily pass me without any oncoming traffic. But drivers are more impatient now, and they seem to respect the rights of bicyclists far less than they used to.

Thanks for sending the letter Al.

 

[Fishingmn]

Guess what, Sparky? A bicycle has as much legal right to the road as you do. If it is not safe to pass, slow down and stay behind them until it is.

I don't agree with this on a highway like 101 for 2 reasons -

1 - Bikes don't pay for the highways. At least in Minnesota highways are paid for by gas taxes. No general funds or property taxes (paid for by bicycle owners) go toward paying for a "right" to use the road.

2 - In Minnesota there are minimum speeds to travel on highways for any vehicle because driving slow (under 45 mph) is a hazard to others. Same thing should apply to a bike.

 

[easysurfer]

I wish there were a lot more roads that are bicycle friendly.

This probably sounds silly, but no matter how right one feels about using the road, one has to go with the laws of physics. No matter how alert and protected (helmets, etc), no way can a bike rider take on a car.

I take my bike mostly just for errands. Most car drivers are great. But sometimes cars buzz a little too close for comfort. Not a pleasant feeling.

p.s. Great letter Al

 

[steelyman]

This probably sounds silly, but no matter how right one feels about using the road, one has to go with the laws of physics. No matter how alert and protected (helmets, etc), no way can a bike rider take on a car.

I don't think it sounds silly at all. I am planning to move this year, and one thing I will miss are good bike riding conditions: flat, wide roads and a bunch of new good bike lanes.

 

[haha]

This probably sounds silly, but no matter how right one feels about using the road, one has to go with the laws of physics. No matter how alert and protected (helmets, etc), no way can a bike rider take on a car.

I read an interesting snippet about risk from a Jared Diamond essay. When he was doing fieldwork in the New Guinea highlands, he was out with a hunting party when nightfall was approaching. They had some tents that could be strung from two trees, and he proposed setting camp under a large dead tree. The tribal woodsmen refused, saying that they never stayed under dead trees, or even dead branches, as it was too dangerous. Diamond argued that the risk was very small, and the tribesmen replied that it may be small each time you do it, but we are out many times, and overall the risk is large. As there were no other suspension points around, they slept cold, under the sky.


An interesting way to think, and I believe more reasonable than our "educated" way of looking at risks of frequent events, where we tend to downplay them probably because trying to give full weight to them is unhandy, or it would interfere with other goals that we may have, or just because we have done the risky act many times and nothing bad has happened (so far).

Ha

 

[Alan]

I read an interesting snippet about risk from a Jared Diamond essay. When he was doing fieldwork in the New Guinea highlands, he was out with a hunting party when nightfall was approaching. They had some tents that could be strung from two trees, and he proposed setting camp under a large dead tree. The tribal woodsmen refused, saying that they never stayed under dead trees, or even dead branches, as it was too dangerous. Diamond argued that the risk was very small, and the tribesmen replied that it may be small each time you do it, but we are out many times, and overall the risk is large. As there were no other suspension points around, they slept cold, under the sky.


An interesting way to think, and I believe more reasonable than our "educated" way of looking at risks of frequent events, where we tend to downplay them probably because trying to give full weight to them is unhandy, or it would interfere with other goals that we may have, or just because we have done the risky act many times and nothing bad has happened (so far).

Ha

Frequency is taken into account in the workplace when doing safety calculations on the probability of something bad happening, and public reporting of all near misses and accidents is used to show employees how easy it is to get hurt by "small" errors. But once one leaves the workplace we have a tendency to forget our education and fall back into bad habits.

 

[Gumby]

I don't agree with this on a highway like 101 for 2 reasons -

1 - Bikes don't pay for the highways. At least in Minnesota highways are paid for by gas taxes. No general funds or property taxes (paid for by bicycle owners) go toward paying for a "right" to use the road.

2 - In Minnesota there are minimum speeds to travel on highways for any vehicle because driving slow (under 45 mph) is a hazard to others. Same thing should apply to a bike.

Disagree all you want. The Minnesota legislature believes otherwise

Minnesota Statutes Sec. 169.222 OPERATION OF BICYCLE.

Subdivision 1.Traffic laws apply.

Every person operating a bicycle shall have all of the rights and duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle by this chapter, except in respect to those provisions in this chapter relating expressly to bicycles and in respect to those provisions of this chapter which by their nature cannot reasonably be applied to bicycles.

 

[ERD50]

Disagree all you want. The Minnesota legislature believes otherwise

I don't think anyone is arguing the legality, they are pointing out that it isn't safe. I don't believe it to be illegal to juggle chainsaws on my property, or put my retirement portfolio in a single 'hot stock', but it would be unwise for me to do so.

Based on some of the laws that our legislatures come up with, I sure would not use them as a model to guide my life, but only to keep out of a courtroom.

At any rate, bringing up 'legality' and cyclists is a bit ironic. IME, the vast majority of times, cyclists show no respect for the laws that apply to them. I don't see them stop for red lights or stop signs unless forced by traffic. They weave in/out of traffic. Signal? Rarely. I heard this discussed regarding red-light cameras in Chicago - what happens when a cyclist runs a red-light? Nothing - no plate, so no ID, so no ticket. And they know it. If they want the law to apply to them, then ALL the laws should apply to them.

This probably sounds silly, but no matter how right one feels about using the road, one has to go with the laws of physics. No matter how alert and protected (helmets, etc), no way can a bike rider take on a car.

This was part of my point. Bikes travelling below prevailing speed limits mingled with cars in near proximity is a recipe for disaster.

A cyclist might feel it is their 'right' to cycle on that road, but as an old driver safety PSA said, "He was right, dead right". Which brings us back to the OP, and the sad fact is that cyclist is dead.

The risk of a 4% vs 3.5% WR, or a 75/25 AA vs 50/50, or taking SS early/late pale in comparison to this kind of risk.


-ERD50

 

[Gumby]

At any rate, bringing up 'legality' and cyclists is a bit ironic. IME, the vast majority of times, cyclists show no respect for the laws that apply to them. I don't see them stop for red lights or stop signs unless forced by traffic. They weave in/out of traffic. Signal? Rarely. I heard this discussed regarding red-light cameras in Chicago - what happens when a cyclist runs a red-light? Nothing - no plate, so no ID, so no ticket. And they know it. If they want the law to apply to them, then ALL the laws should apply to them.

I'm sure this will prove a valid defense when you are sued for injuring a cyclist because you refused to slow down until you could safely pass.


As the cited Minnesota law makes clear, the traffic laws do apply to cyclists. The fact that some of them break the law does not excuse your breaking the law. This is one of the concepts our mothers taught us when we were knee high to a grasshopper.

 

[ERD50]

At any rate, bringing up 'legality' and cyclists is a bit ironic. IME, the vast majority of times, cyclists show no respect for the laws that apply to them. I don't see them stop for red lights or stop signs unless forced by traffic. They weave in/out of traffic. Signal? Rarely. I heard this discussed regarding red-light cameras in Chicago - what happens when a cyclist runs a red-light? Nothing - no plate, so no ID, so no ticket. And they know it. If they want the law to apply to them, then ALL the laws should apply to them.

I'm sure this will prove a valid defense when you are sued for injuring a cyclist because you refused to slow down until you could safely pass.


As the cited Minnesota law makes clear, the traffic laws do apply to cyclists. The fact that some of them break the law does not excuse your breaking the law. This is one of the concepts our mothers taught us when we were knee high to a grasshopper.

What prompted this response? I said it was ironic - I didn't say it was a defense, or a justification, or an excuse. My Mother also taught me not to do something just because others do it, or just because it doesn't break a law. She taught me to use my best judgement.

I don't plan on breaking the law. But when giving a cyclist that legal three feet, they can, and do, often drift in and out and may come closer just as I'm trying to pass them, and I may not have time/space to respond. It seems to me that cyclist has as much legal responsibility to provide that three feet of space from normal traffic as the car driver does to provide that space to the cyclist. And it's tough to know if they see me or not. It just does not seem prudent to effectively say "I'm gonna cycle here, and it's up to you to get out of my way". And that is essentially what T-Al said in his post -

It's hard to describe how it feels to be riding in these locations and having a truck passing you at 65 MPH. Some trucks will move into the center lane, but most do not.

When I read that, my jaw dropped. I thought 'What the heck are you doing cycling on a shoulder where trucks are whizzing by at 65 mph! Get off the road T-AL! We want to see your next Christmas Video!' IMO, that is just crazy.

It is dangerous and often illegal for a car to move slower than prevailing traffic. IMO, it's crazy to have relatively unprotected cyclists in close proximity to larger vehicles, especially when those cyclists can't keep up with prevailing traffic.

I should add - I think sending the letter was the right thing to do, and an admirable thing to do, and it was well written. But w/o a real bike lane, I think cyclists should simply refrain.

-ERD50

 

[glippy]

ERD50, you seem to presume that the cyclists are the ones getting in your way. But if both vehicles have equal claim to the road, maybe it's you who's getting in their way.

If you're driving a vehicle that's too large to safely operate on a road with mixed traffic perhaps you're the one creating the danger on the road, not the other way around. In other words, if you can't safely drive on a road that does not have bike lines, but where bikes are travelling none the less, then perhaps you should refrain from driving on it? Why is the burden on cyclists to accommodate you instead of the other way around, is it just because they're in a minority?

I'm betting you don't drive a Smart car or a Mini.

 

[ERD50]

ERD50, you seem to presume that the cyclists are the ones getting in your way. But if both vehicles have equal claim to the road, maybe it's you who's getting in their way.

If you're driving a vehicle that's too large to safely operate on a road with mixed traffic perhaps you're the one creating the danger on the road, not the other way around. In other words, if you can't safely drive on a road that does not have bike lines, but where bikes are travelling none the less, then perhaps you should refrain from driving on it? Why is the burden on cyclists to accommodate you instead of the other way around, is it just because they're in a minority?

I'm betting you don't drive a Smart car or a Mini.

My primary concern is safety. If I have to make a choice between saving my life, and breaking a traffic law, I will save my life. The legal issues are a distant second for me.

In fact, I have. I was sitting at a red light, and saw a car coming behind me way too fast. I got on the horn, looked both ways and decided to floor it and get out of his way, and swerved back/forth to try to get his attention. He did slam his brakes then and ended up half-way in the intersection. Should I have 'stood my ground' and sat there since it was my 'right' to do so, it was 'my space'? And risk injury to me, my family and my car? Who cares about laws over their families life?

The legal status of "equal claim" is nice on paper (see my earlier "dead right" comment), but as others have pointed out, they don't trump the laws of physics. And since the cyclist is usually not able to keep up with traffic, then yes, they are the ones 'getting in the way', if they can't move far enough off the road for safe passage of the cars. Don't you feel that way in a store when a couple people are stopped, blocking the lane with their shopping carts and yacking? Hey, they have a 'right' to be there, they are in the store shopping - but it's rude, no?

I guess I'm just amazed that anyone is arguing about who the 'burden' is on. Isn't safety the primary concern? If a road does not have a dedicated bike lane, then I'd say that road is designed primarily for car/truck traffic. So yes, I think the 'burden' is on the cyclist. W/O a bike lane, they should accommodate others. If there is a bike lane, I'm certainly not going to invade that space with my car, or body.

And the reality is, whether right or wrong about that road being primarily for car/truck traffic, most drivers are going to act that way. The cyclists who wants to 'stand their ground' is taking a big risk. I can't imagine why they would want to take that risk.

I drive a compact car (Volvo S-40). Not sure what that has to do with it? A bicycle is no match for even the smallest car.

If memory serves well I recall that Anchorage, Alaska built a paved system throughout the city about 10-12+ ft wide for runners, cyclists, etc. that never crosses car traffic but rather goes underneath the intersections through large culverts. Too bad more cities where possible don't adopt that plan.

I'm curious why you think more cities should do this? It seems like a large expense - what's the gain? Most cities can't give up the space for bike lanes, it would be a huge expense to create more space. Bike and walking paths in parks are nice, that space is already there for enjoyment, exercise, etc.

If you think it is an environmental issue, that's very questionable. Very few cities are going to have enough cyclists year-round to be able to remove any existing car lanes. So all the space and paving and maintenance of bike lanes would be in addition to the car lanes, and additional environmental impact. That's a lot of asphalt. And there are some studies that show the carbon content of the food needed to power that cycle can be greater than the carbon content of the fuel to power a car the same distance, esp when car-pooling. Yes, those studies have lots of variables, but surely it is an offsetting factor.

-ERD50

 

[haha]

And there are some studies that show the carbon content of the food needed to power that cycle can be greater than the carbon content of the fuel to power a car the same distance, esp when car-pooling. Yes, those studies have lots of variables, but surely it is an offsetting factor.
-ERD50

There is an element of warfare that goes into all these discussions. Bicyclists are for the most part aware that many drivers think they are a PITA, and they are aware that if they fight for what they see as their rights they are likely to get at least some of them. It's how social change always happens. Now some may pay a price, as do the protesters who get shot or beaten with cop batons. But at least when you are surrounded by your confreres at the Cascade Cycle Club it can seem like a good idea. I used to live in scenic area that drew many cyclists on weekends, and I had a good road bike, but I eventually decided to park it. It was too easy to get killed in a car out there, let alone on a bike.

About your mention of additional food energy needed to bike, I have noticed a strong and immediate influence of my daily activity level on the amount of food that I want. I am not sure of the carbon budget, but I know for most trips, and the kind of food that I eat, gasoline for a car would be cheaper than the additional food needed to go by human power. That's true for walking; I don't bike around cars.

How many cyclists does a cyclist know who has not had some bad spills, perhaps a meetup with a suddenly opened car door, a very close call in an intersection?

Ha