As an aside -
this video may be helpful for many that are condemning the truck driver…
For me, part of being a road user is recognising and then adapting to the limitations of others - and I don’t see that the cyclist here recognised or adapted to the danger he was putting himself into.
Which according to the vehicle code is too bad for you guys behind, wait until you can pass safely. Doesn’t matter if he was driving a tractor or riding a bike.
So if I understand you correctly, if a truck hauling a trailer passes you tomorrow on your way to work, and the truck pulls back into your lane a bit early and destroys the left front corner your car, you are going to smile, wave and holler “No problem it was my fault”? Interesting legal theory you have there Oliver Wendall, got any cites from the real law that back that up?
Exactly right!
Nice apples to kumquats comparison. Go to 0:32 in the video and you can see the cab is at quite an angle to the trailer. Of course he could not see the guys on bikes. In the case we are discussing here the truck was traveling straight ahead. Assuming Spakry McNumbnuts had his mirrors aligned properly there is no question he could have seen the bike. He didn’t look.
Since everyone else has guessed what happened it is now my turn.
Bike is proceeding down the road. Truck starts to pass. Bike pulls as tight to curb as possible say within a foot or so. This still leaves room for the truck to pass assuming the truckers hugs the center line until his entire truck and trailer rig(not just the tractor) is past the rider. However Sparky McNumbnuts doesn’t do either of these two things. While the victim is next to his trailer Magiver’s hero does not look in his mirrors and moves to the right. A road bike rider when hunched over in an areo position is less than 4 feet tall. According to the police report there was 4 feet of clearance to the bottom of the trailer. The truck has moved over enough that the rider is literately under the edge of the trailer and cannot move any further to the right. Now at this point either the trailer wheels probably hook this left handlebar, toss him to the ground or the rear wheels catch up with the rear tire of the bike, and throw him to the ground. From here, you know the rest. From looking at the pictures, I would go with his handlebars got hooked.
As soon as the truck started to move to the right, the rider was dead, he just had not stopped breathing yet. He was fucked. curb to the right, 40 tons of truck to the left.
seriously, this is what you’re hanging your hat on? This is the advice you’d give children? SERIOUSLY?
If you understood me correctly then you’d know I already posted that example as having happened to me the day before I posted. My reaction was to get out of the way of the truck. I’m alive to talk about it. How’s that for legal advice.
The video posted shows the blind spots of trucks. Seems pretty informative in relation to this thread. The video above it was closer to fatality we’re talking about. It shows a bike rider trying to pass a truck on a curving narrowing lane. He HAD to stop or the truck would have crushed him. The dumbass then goes on to try and pass the truck AGAIN.
Like I said, got any legal cites to back up your rather unique legal theories?
I can supply quite a few that back up my position.
yes, dead people can’t sue.
Now are you going to tell us you’d advise children to do as the cyclist did in this thread?
Most people do have families who tend to get pissed off when your negligence kills one of their own.
Enough with the “children” crap. I would advise truck drivers to stop being jerks. And I would indeed advise cyclists to take the lane and hold it until there is a decent garbage lane to drop into. In this state, the statutes say that a bicycle is a vehicle and that vehicles must be operated to the left of the fog line. So, yes, there are times when I break the law and ride in the garbage lane because the road is too damn fast, but if there is less than three feet width of garbage lane, do not be surprised to see me in your way, all the way until you can get around me.
From a criminal case they didn’t have the evidence needed to indict the driver. As far as the civil case goes we have a cyclist who can’t stay ahead of vehicle entering a narrowed road with a truck right behind him. Just as a driver is expected to give way to a cyclist a cyclist will be expected to exercise restraint as it affects those around him. If the trucker is suppose to recognize it’s a dangerous situation, so should the cyclist. The deceased put himself and the trucker in a bad spot. It’s not like the trucker had a great length of road to size up the situation. He was cresting a bridge followed by an intersection. This wasn’t a desert road with nothing to look at.
well that’s some consolation for bad decision making.
You can’t answer my question because there is only one right answer. Get out of the way of trucks and always ride with a way out if you’re crowded. I will continue to give cyclists a wide berth and teach kids how to ride safely.
You on the other hand should always ride with a video cam connected to a crush proof storage device so your family can get some money out of it.
This pretty much sums it up…
Legality of the matter is really the issue, the point is, the cyclist could have done much more to make himself safe.
Fact is, the truck could have done more also.
However, it appears as though the cyclist continued on a path to disaster, one that the truck joined at the intersection shown in the video.
The point to be made, is that trucks of that size have rather large blind spots, they are subject to different physical laws than a small car or a bike.
As I said when I shared the same video on a local motoring discussion board - its when we realise and account for the limitations of others that we keep ourselves safe.
It doesn’t feel to me that the cyclist did this.
Could the truck have done better? Yes, however with a distance of more than 100 metres between where the two “met” and the accident site - it seems to me that the balance feels to the cyclist to have done more
Reading comprehension not your strong suit I guess? Where did I say I didn’t use clipless? 
I always and only ride clipless.
A meaningless and irrelevant question, but if the dead guy had been in a car that tried to pass a massive truck on the right on a too-narrow road and was killed in the resulting accident, then yes, we’d be blaming the victim.
Visual comprehension not your strong suit? The truck was passing the bicyclist. It was the truck driver who put the cyclist in danger.
This video is nothing like what we are talking about. In the video, the cyclist came from behind the truck. In the fatality we’re talking about, the truck was passing the bike. They are the exact opposite, and, not surprisingly, that changes everything.
And the video about blind spots of trucks? Again, not relevant. The trucker came up on the bike and admitted he saw the bike. It was not a case of a “I never saw him. He was in my blind spot.”
This isn’t advice, it’s the law. If you can’t pass safely, whether you’re passing a bike or a car, then you’re at fault for an accident that results. You accept that risk any time you are on public roads in a car, on a bike, or on foot.
Whether or not a crime was committed here is open to debate. Whether bikes have a right to be on public roads and whether cars/trucks are required to pass safely by the law is not.
No one is questioning the rights of cyclists or the responsibility of drivers. But cyclists are not immune to the same laws. They were converging on the same section of road and consideration was not given by the cyclist toward the truck for the conditions at hand. It was a relatively short space for the driver to react to a curving narrowing space. It was negligent of the cyclist to put the driver in the position of drastically altering the forward motion of a large vehicle. He then continued to pace the truck which further endangered his own well being. Had he stood down and compensated for a potentially bad situation he would be alive. He didn’t make one mistake, he made 2. The truck driver made the best of a bad situation and drove around the cyclist. whether he was at the magic number of 3+ feet is relevant but not exclusive to the situation because the truck driver is also responsible for the cars and people around him.
Court decisions are based in part on what the average person would do in any given situation and the decisions made by both parties would come into play.
And yet the cyclist apparently raced to get in front of the truck and beat it to the intersection.
The cyclist put himself in danger.
That’s kind of what I’m thinking too. There’s your legal right to do something or be somewhere, and then there’s being intelligent about it.
Legal rights aren’t going to do you much good when you get flattened out like Wile E. Coyote by the 18 wheeler in your lane.
You are stating the obvious or just ignoring the OP. Not a single poster defending the cyclist has said he made an intelligent decision. I have taught my kids, and my grandkids, that getting hit by a motor vehicle, even when you are legally in the right, still hurts. Just because this cyclist didn’t make an intelligent decision whether he should exercise his rights at that particular time doesn’t change the fact that he was legally allowed to be there. If the truck couldn’t safely pass the legally allowed bicycle, but tried anyhow, and hit the cyclist, then the truck driver is at fault. Making stupid decisions is not against the law. Hitting legally allowed objects on the road is. The OP was wondering why the driver wasn’t indicted.
He wasn’t indicted because there wasn’t enough evidence to bring CRIMINAL charges against him. The GJ made no ruling on “fault”.
Incidentally, in general, I agree with the GJ here. I don’t think accidents should be made into crimes. Certainly if it’s that person’s 3rd DUI or something, then yes, but otherwise, it’s an accident, even if a death occurred. That’s what the civil courts are for, not criminal.
There seems to be a conflict here. If the truck overtook the cyclist and passed him, I should think the cyclist was already ahead of the truck. When something is ahead of you, you deal with in those terms. Squeezing past is not dealing with it appropriately, trucks do not get a free pass just because they are big.
So if something (say, a piano or a three-year-old child) is not legally allowed on the road, it is ok to run into it?