Slog

I blame all of the cars that weren't involved.

Damn, punked by my own fan club.
Needless to say, I completely agree with @1.

Well, at least his hair wasn't messed up from wearing a helmet.

It sounds like the driver was at fault, turning left into oncoming traffic. "Sorry, officer, I didn't see him" is not a valid defense. I hope SPD follows up.

I'd like to see an end to the "But I didn't seeeeeee him!" defense/whine. If you didn't see him, guy, it's because you weren't looking.

It's particularly obnoxious where there are bicycle lanes. The driver doesn't have a shred of an excuse for not watching for bicyclists when there are bicycle lanes painted right there. For god's sake, the bicyclist was right in front of him.

Its early on in the comments so I fee safe by saying:
It is all the drivers fault.
Its early on in the comments so I fee safe by saying:
Its all the bikers fault.
Its early on in the comments so I fee safe by saying:
Its the fault of those walking on the street.
Its early on in the comments so I fee safe by saying:
Critical Mass caused this.
Both parties were late for reservations.
At least one of the 10 people surround the accident is gay.
But really it comes down to ECB,it really is her fault.
If I missed anything feel free to leave a comment but if it is covered in this post think of something else to say.

here's why i wear a helmet: THEY ARE TRYING TO KILL YOU.

What I like best is that there is no expression of sympathy for the poor guy in the hospital just anger at the dumbass in the motor vehicle. There's a potential kicking advisory out for all pet dogs out there until 7am tomorrow.

I got a text from a friend this morning about this who saw the accident (or its immediate aftermath) and thought, "Can't wait for the Slog coverage of this."

Helmets sometimes prevent traumatic brain injury, so why not wear one? What they don't do is prevent oblivious drivers from right- or left-hooking cyclists. And, there's nothing in the story to show whether the cyclist suffered any injuries that a helmet would have prevented, so the helmet line is just a little victim-bashing fluff at this point.

I bike commute daily past that Arco station and drivers fly in and out of there constantly without looking. Anybody who can't be bothered to stop and look for cyclists can say "I didn't see her/him".

Re: THEY ARE TRYING TO KILL YOU: oddly enough, I think I'd almost feel better if I knew that were true, because it implies some level of attention and concern. I think the reality is, most drivers don't care enough to take simple precautions to avoid hitting cyclists.

Whatever the case, I don't think "oops!" is an acceptable defense, whatever the injured cyclist happened to be wearing when s/he was hit.

mike @ 10, "THEY ARE TRYING TO KILL YOU" is my mantra as i ride through traffic. i don't trust anyone in a vehicle. and i don't blame any cyclist for not trusting me when i'm driving my car.

i've been hit by a car, & hard, in 1992. i've broken bones & a broken helmet to prove it.

Oddly enough, the League of American Bicyclists name Washington the Number One Bicycle Friendly State:

http://www.bikeleague.org/news/090508bfs.php

Welcome to the Friendly Roads.

Although its a bad day for bikes, this thing is boss (I think SLOG featured this already, but its so cool):

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid203719194/bclid86272812/bctid1773087787

They should publish the names and addresses of the perps in such accidents and let nature take its course. There's no point in whining about the law. It's stacked against pedestrians and cyclists. Se necessita una revolucionita.

SPD: If you don't see a car with the right of way, you're guilty of a crime when you crash into it. If you don't see a bike with the right of way, don't worry about crashing into it. We don't think the law applies to them.

I have been nearly right hooked by someone exiting that Arco. But I especially fear the left hook. No way to prevent it, no warning; just hope you can brake in time.



I was almost left hooked by some idiot who thought he was fast enough to sneak into his driveway off of John east of Broadway in front of me when I was riding 25-30 mph in the lane with traffic. I locked up my front wheel braking to avoid hitting him and crashed. Fucking infuriating and terrifying. I hope the biker recovers okay and that driver is cited and sued for all he/her is worth.

All of the usual grumbles, yes.

Plus, fellow cyclists:

Wear something obnoxiously noticable, like a hi-viz neon jersey.

And all of us, car, bike, motorcycle:

Just because you can see a car doesn't mean the humanoid inside it is aware of you. This comes up quite a bit. People conflate "I see that car" with "he sees me."

It's the driver's fault that the cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet, of course. Isn't everything always the driver's fault? Now excuse me while I go find an excuse to clock someone with a U-lock.

I rode up to the scene a little while after it happened, when the cop cars and tow truck were still there. I had to cut up a half a block to the right and go through an alley since the road was closed. As I pulled back on to 12th, I looked back to see the bike turned with it's wheels up like a dead dog. Now that I think about it, I had my camera and could have taken a picture but I missed my chance. You don't want to see what it was like anyway, that thin white bike a few yards from the dark-colored car...makes my stomach turn.

Just as soon as you paint your car the same color.

Erm, that was directed at CP's comment @16. Where's my blockquote love?

that thin white bike a few yards from the dark-colored car...

The vehicle is obviously a racist.

"I didn't see it"? Are you kidding me? If that driver had hit a cop on a bike or a cop in a car, this would be reported a whole different way.

tsm@17 - fuck you. It's the drivers fault that he was recklessly negligent and caused an accident. It's the cyclists fault that he may be more injured than he would have been if he were in a helmet. But which of these faults comes first in the chain of cause and effect?

Boyd Main is an Ignorant Turd

"Reckless" and "Negligent" are two very different (and mutually exclusive) concepts in the law. The driver couldn't have been both.

Most of us our ignorant turds-

That said, facts are missing. At what time did the incident occur? If it was dawn or pre-dawn, was visibility an issue? Most cyclists that don't "bother" with helmets also don't bother with lights or non-dark attire. This could be a huge issue of visibility- a white bike doesn't fucking cut it.
Was the driver on a cell? Did he use a signal? What about the lane structure? I could swear it is double yellow- left turns are illegal at that point. Even if the cyclist wasn't seen- the driver should have been sited for an illegal left turn.

Facts, facts, facts- they are missing. Good god Spangenthal-lee should write for Mcain. Can we try less emotion and more reason?
FYI
Time behind- a week:
A bus (operating): 45 hrs
A bike: 7hrs- 10 miles to work and back.
Personal car: 3hrs- kids don't fit on handlebars.
There are assholes on every mode of transportation: buses, cabs, cars, bikes and feet.
Don't judge by mode, judge by facts. So provide them!

The cyclist, a 32-year-old man, was headed southbound on 12th when he collided with a northbound Chevy Blazer as the driver turned left into a gas station parking lot.

[...]

SPD interviewed and released the driver, a 45-year-old man. Jamieson says the driver told police he didn’t see the cyclist.

One of the first things I remember being taught in motorcycle class was to never assume that a car driver can see you, and to act accordingly. I am thinking of this, because in my formal training learning to ride a motorcycle/scooter, I was taught how to avoid this sort of situation. When I read reports about bicyclists being injured by cars, depressingly, I keep getting the sense that bicyclists are never formally trained to co-exist and ride alongside motorized vehicles, and, apparently, they were never trained to anticipate how street traffic behaves. I know nada re what bicyclists undergo in the way of training before they hit city streets, but I do know this statistic about motorcycles: that something like 93% of motorcycle fatalities involve riders who were self-taught. Only 7% of motorcycle fatalities involve people who took a formal training course. My point being: bicyclists could arguably benefit from some kind of (licensing, maybe?) mandatory training requirements before they use motor vehicle streets, IMO. Yes, it's terrible when a car driver doesn't see a bike rider and hits him/her-- but I was taught in motorcycle school that you should never, ever, assume a car can see you, and that if you get hit by a car, it's a failure of TWO parties-- the other driver, and you, because you failed to anticipate and/or react appropriately. You enter every intersection, cross every lane, et al., with that assumption-- that car drivers can not see you. We know from decades of car-cycle interaction that car drivers frequently do not see cycle riders-- car drivers are looking for other car drivers when they drive-- cyclists aren't of foremost concern because a cycle-with-car collision is not going to injure the car driver. Car drivers have a blind spot for two-wheelers, no matter where the two-wheeler is in the field of vision. This isn't vehicular animosity-- it's just unavoidable psychology.

Are bicyclists being taught any of this stuff? What are their credentials/licensing requirements for riding alongside all that deadly motorized traffic? I am not picking a fight, btw-- this is a serious question.

@25

I rode past about 9:30 so it wasn't dawn or predawn when it happened and visibility shouldn't have been an issue. Those are all the facts I have.

@25, here are some facts that we do have: a car weighing 1000 lbs. traveling at 20 mph has 10 times the momentum of a 200 lb. bicycle + rider traveling at 10 mph, and that represents the upper bound of cycle momentum and the lower bound of car momentum. A car, by it's nature, has far far more potential destructive power than a bicycle. There are no facts, like time of day that alter this fundamental reality. A vehicle is a deadly machine, and the onus, morally speaking, is on the person operating the deadly machine to exercise caution proportionate to the danger inherent in the machine. This fact, trumps just about any other fact that might enter into this situation.

The second fact we have is that the driver was turning left across oncoming traffic. Oncoming traffic always has the right of way unless the driver has a protected left turn arrow, which (s)he did not.

So we have a person, operating a deadly machine who did not have the right of way who collided with another person operating a much more benign machine who did have the right of way. The second person ended up in the hospital.

Compared to these two facts, what the cyclist was wearing is of so little significance that it is at best a distraction and at worst offensive victim blaming akin to telling a rape victim she should not have worn that dress.

A vehicle is a deadly machine, and the onus, morally speaking, is on the person operating the deadly machine to exercise caution proportionate to the danger inherent in the machine.

So I take it every accident that happens at a train crossing is the train's fault?

@28
Might doesn't make right- nor wrong. Everyone has the responsibility of operating safely on a street no matter the mode or their own personal safety risk.
Did I push a button? I'm guessing that you personally don't wear a helmet. It's no different then a seat belt. Wearing a helmet isn't about your skill on a bike- it's about the vulnerability of your person. My experience shows that those that don't wear helmets tend to disregard their own personal safety. They also tend to bike much more dangerously, and disregard others on the rode.
Presuming that everyone has to look out for you- because you are smaller, more vulnerable- is arrogant. 29 offers a great counterpoint.

If visibility wasn't an issue, then why wasn't the individual cited for an illegal left turn?

@28 Um...red light or green light for the bicyclist? We need that fact. That determines the right of way.

The car was turning BEFORE the intersection so if the dude blazed thru the intersection on a red, the car had the right of way. But to be honest, I've never seen a bicyclist blaze thru an interesction on a red. nope, NEVER.

Honeyspider, you've obviously never worked emergency medicine (I have). Helmets save brains. And comparing a bicycle accident (I'm not seeing any evidence that the driver was revving the engine and aiming at the cyclist) to a malicious act (rape), is a pathetic red herring troll baiting maneuver. Go back to making my latte and let the big people continue talking.

Look up the Revised Code of Washington, http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61



Regarding the driver turning left: RCW 46.61.185.




The driver should be charged with Negligent Driving in the Second Degree if no drugs were on him (RCW 46.61.525). He should also be charged with Vehicular Assault, as he did substantial damage to the cyclist (RCW 46.61.522).




As for bike lights, the bicyclist is not required to have lights on from 1/2 hour before sunrise until 1/2 hour after sunset (RCW 46.61.780).




If this were a collision between two cars, it is obvious that the driver of the Blazer would be at fault. As bikes are entitled to the same rights and responsibilities of cars, how is this any different?




I wish the biker a speedy recovery, and I hope the driver doesn't have to pay too much from insurance (which is saying the same thing, basically).

Hey, the preview parses posts different from how they're posted! Stranger, get a nerd on this!

Some folks read the Stranger too much and have learned that solving real problems that real people have is bad, making snotty, smug comments is the only acceptable political action.

Some folks need a basic course in Logic 101. "This driver is an a**hole" is not the same thing as saying "All drivers are a**holes." Quit hiding behind an argument no one has made and bring something relevant to the discussion. Opinions are like a**holes: they stink and sh*t comes out of them.

I literally see a dozen drivers yapping on their cell phones, lost while driving, making unsafe lane changes every day... and that's just walking to and from work. I would argue that most drivers simply do not pay attention to a safe degree and treat their vehicles like their living rooms. The fact that you haven't killed anyone doesn't mean you're a safe driver. It just means you might have been yapping on your cell phone and didn't notice the bump. I'm beginning to understand why hit-and-run driving seems to be the official sport of Washington.

seattle pi reports that the accident happened at 8:50 am, so bike lights are a non-issue.

@26 I think you make a fantastic point. As a fellow motorcycle rider, I also take it upon myself to assume that I'm not seen by 4-wheelers. Drive defensively, take calculated risks. And shit happens.

Best wishes to the rider for a speedy recovery.

FYI, I drove past the accident after the bicyclist had been taken away but while all the police cars were still there. There is not a double yellow line where it looks like the accident occurred, but a middle turn lane (unless the accident was exactly at the intersection, in which case there is a left turn lane (double yellow lines), however where the bicycle was it does not look like the accident took place there).

There will always be bad drivers and there will always be bicyclists who don't follow all the rules of the road. That being said, we all just need to be as careful as possible when on the roads. As for this accident, unless you were involved or saw the entire thing happen, lets not speculate and just wish a speedy recovery for the bicyclist.