He wasn’t run over by a truck so your question doesn’t directly relate. If he’d been run over by the truck I would expect a GJ indictment.
And I use to average over 1000 miles during summer break as a teenager. I had pedal cages. didn’t like them and saw no use for them.
And I find more pedestrians on bike paths who manage to walk 4 abreast with dogs and strollers. Go figure.
I’m not even sure they will get a civil conviction. The best evidence will be the impact point on the road left by the deceased. That proves where the tires were.
Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that more people walk than drive bicycles.
Regards,
Shodan
in the streets?
Didn’t read the police report did you? His arm has tire tracks on it that matched one of the rear ties of the trailer. This is pretty close to the textbook definition of being run over IMHO.
Do you have a different definition of “run over”?
See post 56 for the TLDR version.
Yes, my definition would involve being struck by the front of the vehicle. How did the cyclist get run over by the rear tires of a trailer without falling into and then under them?
If he had been struck by the front of the truck there would be no question of driver fault. Do you see the difference? Maybe I’m not explaining it well enough. A trailer will have a floor height of about 4 feet so the open area underneath it will be less. A cyclist isn’t going to fit under the truck while riding. Something has to happen that throws the bike into and then under the back wheels.
How about the trailer hitting the cyclist?
I would like to point out that while a cyclist does have a right to the road and a driver has a responsibility to pass with assured distance that condition must be possible. If I were a lawyer I’d make the case that the cyclist knowingly put himself in a position that was dangerous for himself and those around him. For the truck to pass him legally he has to breach the other lane. The alternative is a rapid deceleration to the speed of the cyclist which could cause a crash from behind.
That could very well have been what happened but that would have knocked him away and the tractor had already passed him. It could also have bounced him off the curb and back into/under the wheels. This is where the legal side of it comes into play. It would take a witness to prove that the trailer struck him and not the other way around.
Being struck head on is easier to prove. It’s a little different when trying to prove negligence because now both parties can be drawn into the debate.
That would mean the driver was going too fast for the existing conditions. That is not the cyclists fault. Biking on the roads where it is allowed shouldn’t be held against a cyclist.
Well we don’t know how fast the driver was going. Maybe the GPS system gave that information and I missed it in the report. And yes, speed would be a contributing factor. But no cyclist can maintain road speeds and by default becomes an obstruction to traffic. the best that I can determine is that the speed limit reduces to 30 mph just ahead of the accident. There was also some kind of trail off to the left of the cyclist just for added info. He may have been racing to it.
If he is riding on a 2 way street that cannot accommodate passing then is he not endangering himself? I think the mitigating factor here is a narrowing of the street and this occurred on a slight bend in the road. The only thing we know for sure is that the truck driver cleared the cyclist with his tractor and the bike went under the trailer wheels. That doesn’t mean it was the prescribed distance but at least the truck driver saw and avoided the cyclist. It all comes down to a lack of evidence and not whether the driver was in fact negligent.
If he had been struck by the trailer - (and not just thrown/pulled under the tire(s) ) - there would be physical evidence on the trailer itself as well.
What simply is not known (based on reading the debate in this thread) is exactly what caused the bike to be under the tire(s) - biker could have hit a rock, had a blowout, got pulled in by the turbulance - trailer could have swayed toward the biker - any number of things are possible.
(FTR - I lost a good friend to a car vs cyclist where there was no doubt it was the drivers fault, I also used to ride quite a bit when I was younger and I know what that semi turbulance feels like, even when there is more than enough room.)
So the trailer is for all intents and purposes not part of the vehicle or somehow not the driver’s responsibility?
First off, I will agree that cyclists should be aware that they lose, big time, every time they tangle with a motor vehicle and they should ride accordingly.
But legally, the bicyclist did nothing wrong. And now he’s dead. So, somebody did something illegal/wrong. That leaves the truck driver.
The key to me is the wording in the statute. The key word is “safely”. If a driver cannot safely pass a cyclist, the driver has to wait. Plain and simple. It doesn’t matter what the posted speed limit is, or if there is a bend in the road coming up, or if it’s a two lane or six lane road, or if the cyclist was racing the truck, or any other excuse - if a vehicle cannot safely pass a cyclist, it has to wait. And since the trucker ran over and killed the cyclist, I think it’s safe to say he couldn’t safely pass the cyclist.
Saying that because the tractor cleared the cyclist “the truck driver saw and avoided the cyclist” is so wrong I can’t believe someone actually wrote it. The driver is responsible for his entire vehicle. If the tractor and trailer can’t clear the cyclist, YOU DON’T PASS. Going back to an earlier poster, if the tractor had passed a slow moving car and then the trailer hit the car, would anyone not blame the trucker?
The mistake the cyclist made, and it cost him his life, was assuming a truck driver would not try to pass him when there wasn’t enough room to safely do so. Here is my tip to cyclists, based on years of commuting by bike - never assume the motor vehicle will do the right thing. Force the driver to do something and then you will know what they are going to do. If you are on a narrow, two lane road and, in your opinion (and that’s the only one that counts) there isn’t enough room for a car to ‘safely’ pass you, ride in the middle of the lane. If you hug the right hand curb, someone is going to try to pass you. If there is oncoming traffic, the vehicle behind you will have to slow down and wait. If there is no oncoming traffic, the vehicle will have to swing to the left to go around you. As soon as they do, move over to the right, thereby increasing the distance between you and the vehicle. If the cyclist that was killed had been in the center of the lane, the truck would have had to slow down. The worst that would have happened is the trucker would have blown his horn and been mad. But the cyclist would still be alive.
Anyone that doesn’t think that is a good idea - you still don’t understand that bikes have the same legal right to the road as a car.
Just so you know, my first action when a road narrows to where it is not safe for a car to pass me is to pull over and wait for cars to go by. But, sometimes, after letting cars go by, while I am driving through a narrow area, a car comes up behind me. That is when my tactic of driving in the center of the lane is put to use.
my experience with trains going by while I’m near them is something akin to vertigo. If I were on a bike moving then this would have added to the effect. I cringe at the thought of an 18 wheeler passing me withing a couple of feet. And then I think of the bike accidents I’ve been in and seen and consider how fast things got out of control.
Something to consider is that if he was traveling close to the speed of the truck then the time spent next to the truck would have been longer. The amount of potential danger would have been extended over a greater length of road.
The trailer follows the tractor unless it’s a fire truck with a steerable tail wheel. In order for something to be run over by the trailer wheels they have to be in front of them.
well yes that’s the law. Can you draw the exact distant in your head needed for legal clearance? How does that change as the road narrows in front of you? Do you think there’s a magic button on a truck that shuts it down? All vehicles have a stopping distance and if a cyclist enters a narrower road that endangers him who made that decision? And no, the truck driver did not run over cyclist. The trailer may have struck the cyclist causing him to bounce off the curb and then down in front of the trailer wheels but that has not been established.
Well that is a fact so there isn’t anything you can disagree with about it. We don’t know how the bike and rider came to be in front of the rear wheels.
Again, if the tractor hit the car then yes. it would be the truckers fault. If the car drove into the trailer then it’s a different matter.
best of luck with your theory to get further into the street in the hopes things go well for you legally.
Actually the worse that could happen is that the truck jackknifes and multiple people are killed. the common sense thing to do in this situation was to give way to the truck.
Anybody that thinks they’re safe on a bike because of the law is begging for trouble. And no, they don’t have the same legal right to the road. Those rights are restricted based on the road. they’re restricted because bikes don’t mix well at high speeds. That reality doesn’t go away because the law says it’s legal to ride on narrow roads with traffic. You wouldn’t advise a child to do this and there is no magic shield that protects adults.
I think this is where you are going wrong,
This is a dynamic situation - it was (or appeared to me from the video snippet I saw) safe for the truck driver to start the pass where he did.
Did something change in the next 100 metres?
Maybe, and maybe not…but 100 metres is what - 5-10 seconds? A lot can happen in that time.
The only thing I know for 100% certain, were I riding a bike in that exact same situation, there is no way in hell I would sit beside a 40’ moving trailer in the hopes that I wouldn’t get hit.
So on that alone, legal or not, proper or not, I think the cyclist did himself a disservice.