Flagstaff cyclist lucky to be alive after being tossed from his bike by passing RV
Flagstaff cyclist lucky to be alive after being tossed from his bike by passing RV
It’s state law to give cyclists at least 3 feet of space.
Just look at the speed that the RV was going! The driver was given a $500 ticket for almost killing 30 cyclists. Insane that they're even allowed to drive after that.
You're viewing a single thread.
At this point I've almost given up. 500$ fine is absolutely insane. Here in Germany a taxi driver was given a fine for killing a cyclist with his door (not deliberately of course!).
Why people even use guns anymore, when you can just kill them with a vehicle. If you fail, you just try again later. Insane
This was obviously an accident. The report says the driver stopped and cooperated with police.
Just an unfortunate accident. Car accidents should never happen, obviously, but being on the road is inherently fucking dangerous.
My father was killed in a car crash that he didn’t cause, my friends older brother was killed on his bike on the side of the road when he got hit by a passing car, I’ve been in about 6 small car accidents myself.
I have two friends who have died on motorcycles, and 3 more who have had bad accidents and are lucky to still be alive.
You take your life in your hands when you use a roadway in any vehicle, but especially in a vehicle that leaves you so unprotected.
Very unfortunate and I’m glad everyone is okay.
An accident assumes no one was at fault. The driver broke at least one law by driving too close to a cyclist, it was not an accident.
The reason you take your life in to your hands when you go out of your house is because people flippantly break the law while driving. True accidents are uncommon.
That’s not what an accident is. Someone is almost always at fault. But that doesn’t mean it’s intentional.
That’s what an accident is, unintentional
It doesn't matter if they didn't try to hit the cyclists, what matters is that they broke a law while doing so. If you cannot control your vehicle well enough to stay within the law, you should have your driver's license suspended until the state is confident that you are able to. Driving is a privilege, and privileges should be revoked if you violate the rules associated with that privilege.
So no, I'm not willing to just accept a $500 fine, the driver at least needs to go to driving school to learn the law, because apparently they don't respect the law enough to follow it.
You think you should lose your license for getting into an accident?
That’s pretty extreme, and would likely tank businesses almsot everywhere. How many people do you think have never been in a cad accident? Not very many
That depends on the severity of the negligence in the accident. But when there's a huge power imbalance like a car and a bicycle or a pedestrian, I absolutely think the penalties should be more severe than between two vehicles.
If you cause an accident, you should absolutely go to traffic school. Full stop. If you exceed some level of negligence, you should have your license suspended. And I think driving an RV at 45mph into a bunch of cyclists qualifies for license suspension, at least for a few months to really drive home the gravity of the mistake.
I have never been in an accident in >15 years of driving, so I'm obviously a bit biased here. But my opinion is that if you cannot drive safely, your driving privileges should be revoked until you prove you can drive safely.
Why isn’t the bike the one who caused the accident? He was in the roadway, wasn’t to the side at all. They weren’t riding in single file, they were riding across each other.
Take some responsibility for your own safety too. You know there are cars using the road, you shouldn’t assume that they will see you. Stay safe
Because that's Arizona State law, and similar laws exist in other states. Here's some exerpts from the legal statute after a quick search:
- "Vehicle":
(a) Means a device in, on or by which a person or property is or may be transported or drawn on a public highway.
(b) Does not include:
...
(i) Electric bicycles, electric miniature scooters, electric standup scooters and devices moved by human power.
So bicycles are not vehicles, according to Arizona State law.
§28-701 Reasonable and prudent speed; prima facie evidence; exceptions:
A. A person shall not drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.
Note that bicycles are not motor vehicles as noted above in the definitions and thus exempt from this statute.
§28-735 Overtaking bicycles; civil penalties:
A. When overtaking and passing a bicycle proceeding in the same direction, a person driving a motor vehicle shall exercise due care by leaving a safe distance between the motor vehicle and the bicycle of not less than three feet until the motor vehicle is safely past the overtaken bicycle.
Bicycles must be given at least three feet of space when overtaking.
§28-812. Applicability of traffic laws to bicycle riders:
A. A person riding a bicycle on a roadway or on a shoulder adjoining a roadway is granted all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter and chapters 4 and 5 of this title, except special rules in this article and except provisions of this chapter and chapters 4 and 5 of this title that by their nature can have no application.
Bicycles have all the rights of a vehicle on a roadway or shoulder. So they absolutely belong there.
§28-815 Riding on roadway and bicycle path; bicycle path usage:
A. A person riding a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except under any of the following situations:
Quick note, the shoulder does not count as part of the roadway (see below).
B. Persons riding bicycles on a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.
The cyclists were riding two abreast.
- "Roadway" means that portion of a highway that is improved, designed or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive of the berm or shoulder. If a highway includes two or more separate roadways, roadway refers to any such roadway separately but not to all such roadways collectively.
So bicycles are allowed on the roadway, the roadway does not include the shoulder, and they are legally entitled to 3 feet of space from other traffic. I see no violations of the law in the video on the part of the cyclists, and I do see a violation from the RV here. The RV is 100% to blame here, the cyclists were actually probably too far to the right and should have occupied more of the roadway to push vehicles to change lanes to pass.
So the bicyclists were acting safely and were well within the law. I think they could've been more safe if they took up more of the roadway, not less.
I absolutely think you should loose your license for being responsible for a crash.
Maybe that means not many people should be driving. That would explain tens of thousands of Americans that die in car crashes each year.
I think businesses would be fine now that we have a superior form of personal transportation: the ebike
It all depends on the circumstances. Driving down the road, and glancing away for a minute and not seeing a bicycle driving on the road until a second before you hit them isn’t really negligent.
That’s why it’s an accident. The driver was within the lines of the roadway, the bicycle wasn’t on the shoulder, and it looks like the driver did not see the bicycle.
That’s called an accident. If you’re negligent for any reason, sure punish the driver. But this doesn’t look at all like that kind of situation here.
I know this crowd is very pro bikes and doesn’t think cars should exist, but you guys are the extreme
Drunk drivers who get into "accidents" get their licences revoked.
It's not extreme, its logical.
Was this guy drunk?
Doesn't matter. It shows that there is precedent for suspended licenses when there is a collision.
You make it seem like they can't take away your license for unsafe driving, for some fucked reason.
Your arguments aren't holding up.
Of course it matters. Driving drunk is not the same as driving stone cold sober.
How could you think they are at all comparable?
It'd be an accident if the RV suffered a mechanical breakdown, causing the collision. Unintentionally colliding with the bicycle would be negligent/reckless operation.
I don't know, man. I sort of see where you're going, but killing someone unintentionally while drunk driving would fall under the accident umbrella using your definition. I think there's more than just intent at play.
That’s what an accident is, unintentional
Even if you frame it like that, there's a massive difference between gross negligence and "oops, that happened".
This driver was negligent at the very least, and I only say that because there's no way of knowing if they intended to just "nudge" the cyclist or not.
Edit: spelling
I agree that hitting the cyclist looks unintentional. And very sorry to hear that so many folks in your life have been taken by vehicle accidents.
When you say that this is, "just an unfortunate accident", it sounds like a defense of the RV drivers poor decision-making that led to very serious injuries of others, hence the downvote.
He was saying it wasn't an intentional attack.
He wasn't saying the RV driver wasn't responsible.
In aviation, any unintended collision is considered an accident, even if one of the pilots crashed the plane suicidally.
Yeah, same thing as motorists in American journalism.
A lot of cycling activists seem to think that "accident" implies no-fault, inaction, and helplessness, and that forcing journalists to reword their articles will somehow make things better. That's a flawed approach.
Journalists aren't in the business of assigning blame in their coverage. Unless one a court or an official investigator has made a ruling, doing so would open them up to libel lawsuits. Advocating for more vivid wording is pointless. That's not how journalism works, nor is it how linguistics works.
Commercial aviation is now the safest form of transportation by far, having made tremendous improvements over the years thanks to implementing recommendations from accident investigations like the one I cited. The same can be done for cycling. Believing that language change is a prerequisite to improvements in safety is a harmful mindset. It would be better to redirect that energy where it belongs: getting the lawmakers and infrastructure planners to take action to reduce the accident rate.
The word "collision" is available, and is often used. I'm not interested in whether or not using less biased language relates to safety, that is not the only concern.
I dont think you understand the word 'accident'.