Wisconsin Cyclist killed in rear-end collision

"Rich Clark" wrote in message
...

"Chris B." wrote in message
...

Incidentally, I see no mention of a helmet as is usually the case
where "the cyclist was not wearing a helmet".

Yeah, makes you wonder if another reporter might have written "the cyclist
was wearing a helmet, but it failed to save his life."

Or, "the cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet, which perhaps could have..."

Bill "contrarian" S.

"Sorni" wrote in message
...
"Rich Clark" wrote in message
...

"Chris B." wrote in message
...

Incidentally, I see no mention of a helmet as is usually the case
where "the cyclist was not wearing a helmet".

Yeah, makes you wonder if another reporter might have written "the
cyclist
was wearing a helmet, but it failed to save his life."

Or, "the cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet, which perhaps could have..."

"Although the cyclist was wearing a helmet, he suffered multiple leg
fractures and a broken collarbone."

I swear I remember reading that in a newspaper, but I can't cite it any
more.

RichC

"Contributing factors in the accident, which was reported at 5:51
a.m., where darkness and lack of rear lighting on the bicycle,
according to the La Crosse County Sheriff's Department."

1. Rear lighting is not required in Wisconsin.
2. We don't know what sort of reflectors he may have had on. He may
have had 2 three-inch amber reflectors, a safety vest, and an orange
flag, and a 20watt front headlight. All we know is that either he
didn't have a rear light, or it was not found after the accident.
3. Remember this is filtered through both a sheriff's department
spokesperson AND a newspaper. Recall that two weeks ago, when Ken
Kifer died, the Alabama authorities insisted for days that his name
was Kiefer, and the newspaper professed not to be sure.
4. The opinion of the La Crosse County Sheriff's Department is
important, but don't you think it's odd that they don't cite "Driver
not paying a damn bit of attention" as a contributing factor? (That's
probably not the official phrasing.)

Our actual knowledge of the details of this bicycle accident are one
step above non-existent.

"Robert Dole" wrote in message
om...
snip
4. The opinion of the La Crosse County Sheriff's Department is
important, but don't you think it's odd that they don't cite "Driver
not paying a damn bit of attention" as a contributing factor? (That's
probably not the official phrasing.)

That may not be the case. A couple of years ago, I was driving home late at
night in a poorly lit area and nearly smoked a cyclist (who had no lights,
no reflectors, and was wearing dark clothing). I was paying a lot of
attention to the road, but the layout of the road was such that I simply did
not see the jerk until it was almost too late. Fortunately for him, I was
paying attention and had the reflexes to avoid turning him into a hood
ornament. Had I not been focussed on the correct point in the road, or had
I had slightly slower reflexes, he might well have been a hood ornament.

Chris B. wrote:
Given that most of the general population - let alone many cyclists
who should know better - believe that reflectors are a suitable
replacement for lights and given that John Forrester was not able to
convince the bicycle industry and the US CPSC to change the status
quo,

http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/lights.htm

Actually, although Forester has always stated that reflectors are no
substitute for a headlight, he does claim in EC that a rear light is
unnecessary. He doesn't make that claim (as far as I could see) in the
article you quote, but he doesn't take the opposite position either.
I'd be curious to know if he's changed his mind or not.


--
Frederic Briere *

= IS NO MO http://www.abacomsucks.com =

Robert Dole wrote:
4. The opinion of the La Crosse County Sheriff's Department is
important, but don't you think it's odd that they don't cite "Driver
not paying a damn bit of attention" as a contributing factor? (That's
probably not the official phrasing.)

Reminds me of an article I read in the newspaper two weeks ago. Here's
a Googled copy:

http://www.recorder.ca/cp/national/030921/n092173A.html

"The driver told police he couldn't avoid the cyclist, who was riding in
the middle of the road."

I couldn't find a more detailed version of the incident, but stated that
way, it sounds as if the cyclist is being blamed for taking the lane.
No mention is made that any driver who hits a cyclist because he's
simply "there" is a danger to anybody.


--
Frederic Briere *

= IS NO MO http://www.abacomsucks.com =

On 4 Oct 2003 03:15:23 -0500, Frederic Briere
wrote:

"The driver told police he couldn't avoid the cyclist, who was riding in
the middle of the road."

I couldn't find a more detailed version of the incident, but stated that
way, it sounds as if the cyclist is being blamed for taking the lane.
No mention is made that any driver who hits a cyclist because he's
simply "there" is a danger to anybody.

A letter to the editor in the same paper that reported the death of
the young doctor complained about coming around a blind curve and
finding cyclists riding four abreast.

There are a lot of blind curves on country roads in Wisconsin. They
are marked with diamond-shaped yellow signs indicating the direction
of the curve and the recommended speed for negotiating the curve. The
signs are widely ignored. They are speeds at which one can see and
avoid traffic ahead. If you're doing 35, for example, on a curve
marked for 35, you can brake in time to avoid hitting a combine being
transported from farm to farm. That's why the signs are there.

You can normally travel much faster through the curve without losing
traction and hitting the ditch, and thus the signs are widely ignored.
And that's why it is unwise to take the lane on a hilly, winding
country road.

Chris B. wrote in message

Where I live, there is no requirement to have a rear light, only a
rear reflector as comes on every new bike. The article did not
mention whether the bicycle had a rear reflector (I'm assuming it did)
nor did it state that a rear light is mandated by law in his area as
the article implies.

In some places, a flashing rear light is disallowed:

http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/hta3.html

Actually, if you read the actual law, rather than
that incomplete interpretation, you'll see that
while a flashing red light is expressly disallowed,
no mention is made of flashing amber lights.

"http://192.75.156.68/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90h08_e.htm#P2483_280705"

"Intermittent red light restricted

(14) Subject to subsection (15), no person shall
use a lamp, other than the vehicular hazard warning
signal lamps commonly known as four way flashers,
that produces intermittent flashes of red light.
R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 62 (14)."

Most of Europe has similar restrictions on flashing
red lights. Most of the LED blinkers can be set to
steady-state mode, though battery life is greatly
reduces.

One of the popular flashers was the Belt Beacon, which
was amber, and provided much better visibility than the
current crop of LED blinkers.

LED blinkers are pretty much worthless anyway. You can
buy xenon strobes that are much better, and not that much
more expenive.

A lot of things are not mandated by law, but that doesn't
mean that common sense is thrown out the window. There is
no law that you must wear a helmet either, but most cyclists
in the U.S. choose to.

It would be nice if there were a law that required rear
lights on bicycles (and good front lights too), but the
bicycle lighting manufacturers don't have much political
clout.

Zippy the Pinhead wrote:

On 4 Oct 2003 03:15:23 -0500, Frederic Briere
wrote:

"The driver told police he couldn't avoid the cyclist, who was riding in
the middle of the road."

I couldn't find a more detailed version of the incident, but stated that
way, it sounds as if the cyclist is being blamed for taking the lane.
No mention is made that any driver who hits a cyclist because he's
simply "there" is a danger to anybody.

A letter to the editor in the same paper that reported the death of
the young doctor complained about coming around a blind curve and
finding cyclists riding four abreast.

There are a lot of blind curves on country roads in Wisconsin. They
are marked with diamond-shaped yellow signs indicating the direction
of the curve and the recommended speed for negotiating the curve. The
signs are widely ignored. They are speeds at which one can see and
avoid traffic ahead. If you're doing 35, for example, on a curve
marked for 35, you can brake in time to avoid hitting a combine being
transported from farm to farm. That's why the signs are there.

You can normally travel much faster through the curve without losing
traction and hitting the ditch, and thus the signs are widely ignored.
And that's why it is unwise to take the lane on a hilly, winding
country road.

My understanding is that the posted speed enables motorists to come to a
complete stop prior to striking a stationary object. A bicyclist moving in
the same direction provides a great margin for error. A motorist should have
no trouble slowing to the bicyclists speed.

So, I contend that it is a good idea to use the full lane under any condition
in which you want to communicate via position that you don't want motorists
to overtake. Moreover, by being further out into the lane, you are visible
sooner when the road is curvy.

Wayne

"Sorni" wrote in message . ..
"Rich Clark" wrote in message
...

"Chris B." wrote in message
...

Incidentally, I see no mention of a helmet as is usually the case
where "the cyclist was not wearing a helmet".

Yeah, makes you wonder if another reporter might have written "the cyclist
was wearing a helmet, but it failed to save his life."

Or, "the cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet, which perhaps could have..."

Bill "contrarian" S.

He was wearing a helmet. Though I didn't know him, he and I frequent
the same LBS, and I spoke to the folks there. He was on a black Trek
MTB, no lights, and the earlier reports in the paper mentioned a
helmet "found at the scene," and suggested it might have come off in
the accident. Alas, it's not only head injuries that can kill you.

The road where he was killed has, IIRC, three lanes at that point--two
going up and one coming down. He was in the left lane of the uphill
portion, about to turn left onto another road. He would have been
invisible against the remaining uphill.