Slog
News & ArtsFriday, August 7, 2009
City Cyclist Seriously Injured in Collision
Posted by Jonah Spangenthal-Lee on Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 9:08 AM
A cyclist was seriously injured in a collision with a car in Wallingford yesterday afternoon.
According to police, at about 12:45 p.m., officers responded to an accident in the 200 block of NE 45th Street after, police say, a cyclist collided with the passenger side of a car making a left turn.
Medics responded and transported the 26-year-old male cyclist to Harborview with life-threatening injuries. Police say the driver was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
SPD's Traffic Collision Squad is investigating the incident.
1
Well, it's interesting that you chose to report on this bike/car accident but not this one: http://www.myballard.com/2009/08/03/bicy….
It's sorry to see only stories here that appear to promote a pro-bike, "cars are terrible!" agenda.
It's sorry to see only stories here that appear to promote a pro-bike, "cars are terrible!" agenda.
4
You left out the part about the cyclist blowing past the car that had stopped (on a street with one lane of travel in each direction) to let someone make a left turn in front of them. The turning car was then hit in the passenger side by the cyclist who was ignoring what was going on in front of him.
6
Oh so a car moving laterally didn't yield to parallel traffic moving straight?
Then I'm sure you wouldn't blame a cyclist turning left in front of a car passing on the left either.
Then I'm sure you wouldn't blame a cyclist turning left in front of a car passing on the left either.
7
@ 3, they might not mention fault, but I can't imagine any other way that a cyclist would collide with the passenger of a left-turning car.
10
@7 what if the cyclist "[blew] past the car that had stopped (on a street with one lane of travel in each direction) to let someone make a left turn in front of them." as @ 4 comments??
I was almost knocked on my ass yesterday by a cyclist as I came up the stairs @ Montlake, they weren't even paying attention as they were looking over their other shoulder so they could scoot out in front of cars getting on 520. The only reason they didn't knock me on my ass is because I was paying attention. Yes it would have been them that was at fault for running into me (on a sidewalk where they technically shouldn't be riding anyway) ... but I would have been just as much the dumbass for allowing it to happen.
I was almost knocked on my ass yesterday by a cyclist as I came up the stairs @ Montlake, they weren't even paying attention as they were looking over their other shoulder so they could scoot out in front of cars getting on 520. The only reason they didn't knock me on my ass is because I was paying attention. Yes it would have been them that was at fault for running into me (on a sidewalk where they technically shouldn't be riding anyway) ... but I would have been just as much the dumbass for allowing it to happen.
11
Left turns in front of cyclists are the most common car-bike accident, constituting something like 15% of total collisions (the second most common is the right turn in front of cyclist at an intersection). The damage from this type of accident is higher than in most others because the speeds are high. Imagine hitting a brick wall going 3-4x faster than you can go on a bike. In most cases, it is a left turning car trying to get through a yellow light. They simply do not see the cyclist.
I was hit by a car doing a left turn in front of me on Lake City Way last year. I hit the quarter panel at an equivalent of 45 mph and destroyed my shoulder, needing surgery. I consider myself *very* lucky.
Just last month, an experienced bike racer was hit in similar fashion on Lk Wa Blvd near Seward Park who suffered traumatic neck injuries. He passed away after 2 weeks in the hospital in a coma. One of my teammates went through a pickup truck window doing the same thing a few years back and luckily survived after a few days in the hospital.
Car drivers - PLEASE BE AWARE of this hazard. Look for oncoming cyclists before gunning it through an intersection. They have the right of way, but a mistake can cost them their life. We all need to share the road.
@1: Cars are not terrible, but the psychology of most drivers is that they own the road. In the Netherlands and in Germany, where the bike-car accident rate is dozens of times lower than here, there are simply more bikes on the road and therefore more awareness. Stories like this raise awareness for everyone. I drive and bike, and these stories cement the idea in my head that I am commandeering a 2 ton weapon and need to be alert all the time.
I hope the cyclist in Wallingford makes it through OK. Life-threatening injuries doesn't sound good.
More...
I was hit by a car doing a left turn in front of me on Lake City Way last year. I hit the quarter panel at an equivalent of 45 mph and destroyed my shoulder, needing surgery. I consider myself *very* lucky.
Just last month, an experienced bike racer was hit in similar fashion on Lk Wa Blvd near Seward Park who suffered traumatic neck injuries. He passed away after 2 weeks in the hospital in a coma. One of my teammates went through a pickup truck window doing the same thing a few years back and luckily survived after a few days in the hospital.
Car drivers - PLEASE BE AWARE of this hazard. Look for oncoming cyclists before gunning it through an intersection. They have the right of way, but a mistake can cost them their life. We all need to share the road.
@1: Cars are not terrible, but the psychology of most drivers is that they own the road. In the Netherlands and in Germany, where the bike-car accident rate is dozens of times lower than here, there are simply more bikes on the road and therefore more awareness. Stories like this raise awareness for everyone. I drive and bike, and these stories cement the idea in my head that I am commandeering a 2 ton weapon and need to be alert all the time.
I hope the cyclist in Wallingford makes it through OK. Life-threatening injuries doesn't sound good.
12
Hmm... I could have sworn that I made the first comment on this thread. Um, when I answered 3, I thought s/he was addressing me, because I thought I had posted that the car clearly didn't yield to the bicycle. Sorry for any confusion I'm causing...
13
Left turns in front of cyclists are the most common car-bike accident, constituting something like 15% of total collisions (the second most common is the right turn in front of cyclist at an intersection). The damage from this type of accident is higher than in most others because the speeds are high. Imagine hitting a brick wall going 3-4x faster than you can go on a bike. In most cases, it is a left turning car trying to get through a yellow light. They simply do not see the cyclist.
I was hit by a car doing a left turn in front of me on Lake City Way last year. I hit the quarter panel at an equivalent of 45 mph and destroyed my shoulder, needing surgery. I consider myself *very* lucky.
Just last month, an experienced bike racer was hit in similar fashion on Lk Wa Blvd near Seward Park who suffered traumatic neck injuries. He passed away after 2 weeks in the hospital in a coma. One of my teammates went through a pickup truck window doing the same thing a few years back and luckily survived after a few days in the hospital.
Car drivers - PLEASE BE AWARE of this hazard. Look for oncoming cyclists before gunning it through an intersection. They have the right of way, but a mistake can cost them their life. We all need to share the road.
@1: Cars are not terrible, but the psychology of most drivers is that they own the road. In the Netherlands and in Germany, where the bike-car accident rate is dozens of times lower than here, there are simply more bikes on the road and therefore more awareness. Stories like this raise awareness for everyone. I drive and bike, and these stories cement the idea in my head that I am commandeering a 2 ton weapon and need to be alert all the time.
I hope the cyclist in Wallingford makes it through OK. Life-threatening injuries doesn't sound good.
More...
I was hit by a car doing a left turn in front of me on Lake City Way last year. I hit the quarter panel at an equivalent of 45 mph and destroyed my shoulder, needing surgery. I consider myself *very* lucky.
Just last month, an experienced bike racer was hit in similar fashion on Lk Wa Blvd near Seward Park who suffered traumatic neck injuries. He passed away after 2 weeks in the hospital in a coma. One of my teammates went through a pickup truck window doing the same thing a few years back and luckily survived after a few days in the hospital.
Car drivers - PLEASE BE AWARE of this hazard. Look for oncoming cyclists before gunning it through an intersection. They have the right of way, but a mistake can cost them their life. We all need to share the road.
@1: Cars are not terrible, but the psychology of most drivers is that they own the road. In the Netherlands and in Germany, where the bike-car accident rate is dozens of times lower than here, there are simply more bikes on the road and therefore more awareness. Stories like this raise awareness for everyone. I drive and bike, and these stories cement the idea in my head that I am commandeering a 2 ton weapon and need to be alert all the time.
I hope the cyclist in Wallingford makes it through OK. Life-threatening injuries doesn't sound good.
14
@ 10, cars making left turns have to look out for all oncoming traffic, regardless of whether the driver or cyclist is doing something stupid.
Of course, the particular issue being raised here is, why was a car yielding to a left turn? If the stopped car had the right of way, that person is most clearly at fault.
Of course, the particular issue being raised here is, why was a car yielding to a left turn? If the stopped car had the right of way, that person is most clearly at fault.
15
I agree that drivers NEED to be more aware of cyclists (and pedestrians, but especially cyclists are they are moving much more quickly than pedestrians), but I also think that cyclists need to follow the same rules of the road. If the car IN FRONT OF YOU stops, figure out why before you just blow past them, that is JUST AS DANGEROUS as cars simply not paying attention to you. Always be on the wary and realize that no matter how much you plead there are just going to be a shit load of unaware drivers not thinking about you.
16
@ 15, agreed. We'll have to see whether @ 4 is stating the truth about this collision or not. There's no reason to take it at face value at this point.
17
@16 Totally, especially as the image shown in this post, now that I really think about it ... does not support what @4 said ...
18
@4,
So the bicyclist is supposed to be a mind reader? How was he supposed to know the stopped driver was an idiot? Drivers who are obsessively polite to each other (by letting a car that doesn't have the right of way through) are at least as dangerous as the oblivious idiots out there. Bicyclists, pedestrians, and other drivers aren't going to assume that a driver is stopped to let someone else go. I've almost been hit a couple of times as a pedestrian thanks to idiots like that.
So the bicyclist is supposed to be a mind reader? How was he supposed to know the stopped driver was an idiot? Drivers who are obsessively polite to each other (by letting a car that doesn't have the right of way through) are at least as dangerous as the oblivious idiots out there. Bicyclists, pedestrians, and other drivers aren't going to assume that a driver is stopped to let someone else go. I've almost been hit a couple of times as a pedestrian thanks to idiots like that.
19
@4 If that's the case, we can chalk up yet another accident caused by an idiot Seattle driver trying to be polite while breaking the law and generally fucking up the expected behavior of traffic.
20
@18 because if a bicycle was truly following the rules of the road he would have yielded behind the stopped vehicle, as he is *supposed* to be another vehicle in traffic.
This is PRECISELY why bicycles shouldn't be on the roads playing in traffic! There are too many "extra" rules to accomodate them, giving them extra lanes in some situations, other times they need to be in the middle of a lane acting like a motorized vehicle.
Seeing as how this road doesn't have bike lanes, the bicyclist is clearly at fault for not paying attention, pulling an illegal manuever and going around a stopped car ahead of him, and not using extreme care & caution (READ: going around SLOWLY) to see why the vehicle ahead of him was yielding.
Either bicycles on downtown city streets need to declare themselves as full vehicles, and stay in amongst traffic and therefore follow all car rules, or they must get the fuck off the road. Enough is enough.
These convoluted bullshit "it depends on the situation" rules are completely worthless and lead to accidents. In this case the driver of the vehicle that the bicyclist impacted is now going to be partially at fault, have to fix his vehicle, and possibly see increased insurance rates, because some ASSHOLE bicyclist once AGAIN tried to assert his "rights" at the wrong moment.
Dumb ass.
This is PRECISELY why bicycles shouldn't be on the roads playing in traffic! There are too many "extra" rules to accomodate them, giving them extra lanes in some situations, other times they need to be in the middle of a lane acting like a motorized vehicle.
Seeing as how this road doesn't have bike lanes, the bicyclist is clearly at fault for not paying attention, pulling an illegal manuever and going around a stopped car ahead of him, and not using extreme care & caution (READ: going around SLOWLY) to see why the vehicle ahead of him was yielding.
Either bicycles on downtown city streets need to declare themselves as full vehicles, and stay in amongst traffic and therefore follow all car rules, or they must get the fuck off the road. Enough is enough.
These convoluted bullshit "it depends on the situation" rules are completely worthless and lead to accidents. In this case the driver of the vehicle that the bicyclist impacted is now going to be partially at fault, have to fix his vehicle, and possibly see increased insurance rates, because some ASSHOLE bicyclist once AGAIN tried to assert his "rights" at the wrong moment.
Dumb ass.
21
@ 20, don't blame the uninformed for not knowing the rules of the road. (For example, I'm pretty sure it's alright for bikes to pass cars on the left when they're stopped.)
Now, keep in mind that we don't actually KNOW whether there was a stopped car or not. All we have is an anonymous post asserting this, not a news or police report. Let's not debate this point unless we know it's a fact.
Now, keep in mind that we don't actually KNOW whether there was a stopped car or not. All we have is an anonymous post asserting this, not a news or police report. Let's not debate this point unless we know it's a fact.
22
Hmm. After re-reading @ 20, it's clear that you're making more assumptions than I thought. You don't have any basis for calling the cyclist an asshole.
23
It would have been so cool if the stopped car had stopped to let someone in a wheelchair (i.e., short, slow and hard to see) cross the street in front of them, and the bicyclist had slammed into the "passenger side" of the wheelchair.
Or at least I *think* "cool" is the word I'm looking for...
Or at least I *think* "cool" is the word I'm looking for...
24
@16 - I'm just stating the facts as they were reported on the Seattle Police Department's blog in the post describing the incident.
My primary point was to highlight the fact that regardless of whether the eastbound car was polite/stupid/at fault for for stopping to let the westbound car (which was in the center turn lane waiting to turn left into a driveway) make his turn, IT WAS THE CYCLIST WHO IGNORED THE FACT THAT THE CAR IN FRONT OF HIM STOPPED FOR SOME REASON AND CHOSE TO PASS IT INSTEAD OF LOOKING TO SEE WHY.
Now is the westbound, left-turning driver at fault? Depends. If the cyclist was going fast enough to hit the car as hard as he did, then there's a good chance the driver never had a chance to see him behind the car that stopped to let him turn. (Was the cyclist weaving in and out and around slower moving cars as I've seen so many do? Was the turning driver talking on his phone or otherwise distracted? The police are still investigating.)
Everyone needs to pay more fucking attention both for self preservation and the unintentional infliction of harm.
My primary point was to highlight the fact that regardless of whether the eastbound car was polite/stupid/at fault for for stopping to let the westbound car (which was in the center turn lane waiting to turn left into a driveway) make his turn, IT WAS THE CYCLIST WHO IGNORED THE FACT THAT THE CAR IN FRONT OF HIM STOPPED FOR SOME REASON AND CHOSE TO PASS IT INSTEAD OF LOOKING TO SEE WHY.
Now is the westbound, left-turning driver at fault? Depends. If the cyclist was going fast enough to hit the car as hard as he did, then there's a good chance the driver never had a chance to see him behind the car that stopped to let him turn. (Was the cyclist weaving in and out and around slower moving cars as I've seen so many do? Was the turning driver talking on his phone or otherwise distracted? The police are still investigating.)
Everyone needs to pay more fucking attention both for self preservation and the unintentional infliction of harm.
25
@23 I so totally almost said the same thing ...
A lot of bicyclists don't pay any more attention to pedestrians than a lot of motorist do to bicyclists.
Still sucks what happened to this person and I do hope that they are okay. I just wish that cyclists would learn defensive riding (I wish the same of drivers, but unfortunately we gotta learn to look out for ourselves, no one is doing it for us)
A lot of bicyclists don't pay any more attention to pedestrians than a lot of motorist do to bicyclists.
Still sucks what happened to this person and I do hope that they are okay. I just wish that cyclists would learn defensive riding (I wish the same of drivers, but unfortunately we gotta learn to look out for ourselves, no one is doing it for us)
26
@ 21 "don't blame the uninformed for not knowing the rules of the road."
What?
Then who else is to blame? Seriously. If some dumb shit doesn't know the rules of the road then they should stay off of it.
What?
Then who else is to blame? Seriously. If some dumb shit doesn't know the rules of the road then they should stay off of it.
27
Hey, Matt in Denver, oh - sorry - I keep getting that wrong. It's not Matt "in" Denver, is it? Dude, I'm sorry. Let me start over and see if I can get this right.
Hey, Fuck Face, what is it you do for a living that you can sit around all day on Slog posting hate and arguing with everyone? I'm considering a career change, preferably to a job where I can waste time trolling blogs from other cities all day.
Hey, Fuck Face, what is it you do for a living that you can sit around all day on Slog posting hate and arguing with everyone? I'm considering a career change, preferably to a job where I can waste time trolling blogs from other cities all day.
28
Perhaps let's acknowledge that a terrible accident occurred and the fact that someone has LIFE-threatening injuries, here, instead of playing the I'm-right-you're-wrong game. Who cares whose fault it is, when we have no facts? Speculating only poisons investigations.
Sometimes no one is to blame; sometimes no one has to be right and another person HAS to be wrong. Sometimes condolences to the poor person, his friends and his family, as well as the driver, who most likely feels horrible, are the kindest response.
Sometimes no one is to blame; sometimes no one has to be right and another person HAS to be wrong. Sometimes condolences to the poor person, his friends and his family, as well as the driver, who most likely feels horrible, are the kindest response.
29
@ 24, thanks for the info. Here's the link:
http://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2009/08/06…
Interesting. Probably because of the intersection photo I assumed that it happened at the intersection, but it says the turning vehicle was turning into a driveway in the middle of the block. That just makes me wonder why the other car was stopped even more.
http://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2009/08/06…
Interesting. Probably because of the intersection photo I assumed that it happened at the intersection, but it says the turning vehicle was turning into a driveway in the middle of the block. That just makes me wonder why the other car was stopped even more.
31
@ 27, today I'm at home watching my kids and their cousins.
Better lobby SLOG to ban me because, you know, I'm from Denver and this is a Seattle blog... never mind my Seattle roots, I gave that up like I gave up getting to vote in Seattle elections... you poor, poor, pitiful too-scared-to-register turd...
Better lobby SLOG to ban me because, you know, I'm from Denver and this is a Seattle blog... never mind my Seattle roots, I gave that up like I gave up getting to vote in Seattle elections... you poor, poor, pitiful too-scared-to-register turd...
32
@ 26, duh... I meant to say "BLAME the uninformed for not knowing the rules of the road." But that's not the point I meant to make... I MEANT to say that people need to understand the rules of the road, and that simplifying them (as Reality Check seems to propose) isn't how you deal with that...
33
Way up @7, Matt from Denver... You "can't imagine any other way that a cyclist would collide with the passenger [side] of a left-turning car." And @ everyone else whose only experience with cyclists are the law-breakers.
When my husband collided with the passenger-side of a left-turning car, it was because he was riding about 30mph in a cycling-appropriate lane, and the left-turner gunned it through the intersection. According to the driver, he simply didn't see my husband (in his bright red cycling jersey and bright red helmet) on his (bright white and blue) bike. According to witnesses, the car driver initiated his left turn just before my husband entered the intersection coming from the other direction. My husband saw the car, braked hard, tried to turn/skid to slow himself down, but at 30mph there was NO WAY to avoid the collision. He crashed into the passenger side door and mirror and destroyed his shoulder and clavicle. Luckily he was able to decrease speed enough to avoid actually getting hit by the FRONT of the car.
THAT is how a cyclist would collide with the passenger side of a left-turning car. Not trying to sneak past other traffic, not breaking any traffic laws at ALL, but cycling legally and defensively, and still get creamed by a driver who's not paying attention.
When my husband collided with the passenger-side of a left-turning car, it was because he was riding about 30mph in a cycling-appropriate lane, and the left-turner gunned it through the intersection. According to the driver, he simply didn't see my husband (in his bright red cycling jersey and bright red helmet) on his (bright white and blue) bike. According to witnesses, the car driver initiated his left turn just before my husband entered the intersection coming from the other direction. My husband saw the car, braked hard, tried to turn/skid to slow himself down, but at 30mph there was NO WAY to avoid the collision. He crashed into the passenger side door and mirror and destroyed his shoulder and clavicle. Luckily he was able to decrease speed enough to avoid actually getting hit by the FRONT of the car.
THAT is how a cyclist would collide with the passenger side of a left-turning car. Not trying to sneak past other traffic, not breaking any traffic laws at ALL, but cycling legally and defensively, and still get creamed by a driver who's not paying attention.
35
@33 that is really scary, I hope that your husband is okay.
@27 do you hate as much on Kim in Portland or Julie in Eugene or is just the people that you disagree with that you are such an asshole to? The opinion that matters is the one that matches up with yours?
@27 do you hate as much on Kim in Portland or Julie in Eugene or is just the people that you disagree with that you are such an asshole to? The opinion that matters is the one that matches up with yours?
36
This stretch of 45th regularly backs up, especially during lunch and rush hour. So, it's perfectly reasonable that the hypothetical car that was stopped couldn't go forward through the intersection which is why they were 'yielding' to the car turning left. Everyone stuck in traffic has let someone do this instead of sitting in the middle of the intersection, unless your an asshole, and everyone has watched as bicyclists blew through the intersection as well.
I think when negotiating the road through heavy traffic that everyone, bicyclist and pedestrians, need to be hyper-aware of intersections especially.
I think when negotiating the road through heavy traffic that everyone, bicyclist and pedestrians, need to be hyper-aware of intersections especially.
37
The bicyclist was at fault. The EB car in front of him stopped. It doesn't matter that the EB car didn't have to stop. If I'm waiting to make a left WB and an EB car stops and I make my turn the EB car behind the stopped car can't come into my lane to pass the stopped car.
However I'm a biker and I play in the roads in traffic and people who have problems with cyclists suck.
I don't, however, blow through traffic or past cars at high speed.
However I'm a biker and I play in the roads in traffic and people who have problems with cyclists suck.
I don't, however, blow through traffic or past cars at high speed.
39
This could have been avoided by all parties. I'm not sure who's legally at fault, but I'd guess the guy who was making the turn.
In any case, the cyclist could have been much more careful about why cars were stopped.
The stopped car could have not been a jackass and just kept moving.
The left-turning car could have been paying more attention to the right-of-way traffic.
Though I have to ask those people blaming the cyclist for passing slower moving traffic on a one lane street: do you ever pass slow-moving or stopped cyclists in your car on a one lane street? How is it any different? In your world, cars are allowed to pass bikes, but bikes can't pass cars?
In any case, the cyclist could have been much more careful about why cars were stopped.
The stopped car could have not been a jackass and just kept moving.
The left-turning car could have been paying more attention to the right-of-way traffic.
Though I have to ask those people blaming the cyclist for passing slower moving traffic on a one lane street: do you ever pass slow-moving or stopped cyclists in your car on a one lane street? How is it any different? In your world, cars are allowed to pass bikes, but bikes can't pass cars?
40
"do you ever pass slow-moving or stopped cyclists in your car on a one lane street?"
Carefully? Checking for oncoming traffic first?
Carefully? Checking for oncoming traffic first?
41
@40: quit trolling. To get there you must have read the sentence "In any case, the cyclist could have been much more careful about why cars were stopped."
42
None of you were there to witness the accident. What the fuck can you possibly be arguing about?
Shit happens. Car and bikes need to look for each other.
My brother got killed riding when he just 15 years old. He made a mistake , the driver made a mistake. It was really both their fault. I think that's how it usually goes in this type of situation. How many accidents have we seen were it is clearly one persons fault?
Shit happens. Car and bikes need to look for each other.
My brother got killed riding when he just 15 years old. He made a mistake , the driver made a mistake. It was really both their fault. I think that's how it usually goes in this type of situation. How many accidents have we seen were it is clearly one persons fault?
43
I'm not trolling. I'm disagreeing. The bicyclist was at fault. Stopping to let someone turn when you don't have to is lame but it doesn't rise to the level of negligence. Passing a stopped car and running into a car coming the opposite way and/or turning is a deadly mistake.
Bicyclists are sadly far too unlikely to STOP and evaluate a position and then pass if that's the right thing to do. Your momentum is not worth your life.
Bicyclists are sadly far too unlikely to STOP and evaluate a position and then pass if that's the right thing to do. Your momentum is not worth your life.
44
@43: "Bicyclists are sadly far too unlikely to STOP and evaluate a position and then pass if that's the right thing to do. Your momentum is not worth your life."
I agree that your momentum is not worth your life, but I disagree with that first generality. Bicyclists in general are likely to slow down enough that they can stop if need be. Your exposure is apparently mostly to the highly visible minority of cyclists who have very little survival instinct, and who can blame you? They're the ones who are almost getting into accidents all the time.
I maintain that anyone involved could have prevented this accident by driving legally. If traffic in front of the driveway was stopped and the stopped car was just giving space to the guy trying to make the turn, it's hard to blame him. Did the cyclist make the right decision in going around the car? Guess not, he got pegged. Did the turning car make the right decision to turn? Guess not, he pegged a guy in the oncoming lane.
Heaping the blame on one party here just doesn't work.
I agree that your momentum is not worth your life, but I disagree with that first generality. Bicyclists in general are likely to slow down enough that they can stop if need be. Your exposure is apparently mostly to the highly visible minority of cyclists who have very little survival instinct, and who can blame you? They're the ones who are almost getting into accidents all the time.
I maintain that anyone involved could have prevented this accident by driving legally. If traffic in front of the driveway was stopped and the stopped car was just giving space to the guy trying to make the turn, it's hard to blame him. Did the cyclist make the right decision in going around the car? Guess not, he got pegged. Did the turning car make the right decision to turn? Guess not, he pegged a guy in the oncoming lane.
Heaping the blame on one party here just doesn't work.
45
At least the cyclists don't have their bicycles light on fire like the drivers of cars, trucks, semis and camper vans do so frequently in this city.
48
@44 Wrong Doceb.
Everyone involved could not have prevented the accident. The car is at the mercy of the quicker more nimble bicyclist.
The bicyclist is indeed at fault if it went around the stopped vehicle ahead of it.
The car making the turn is not at fault. He did not peg the car stopped (you know...the legal one in the oncoming lane)... rather he pegged the illegal bicyclist who swung around the legal car and into the curb, thereby creating an "illegal" extra lane.
I can easily envision a scenario (I've actually witnessed this scenario MANY times personally), whereby the bicyclist swings around the stopped vehicle so fast, that the turning car has already committed to turning and is entering the turn lane, only to suddenly be confronted with a nimble fast moving bicycle trying to pull a manuever and illegally go around the stopped vehicle.
It happens all the time. The police need to start nailing bicyclists for a "Care Required" mega ticket that affects their insurance and driver's license. Only until such time that we start sticking bicyclists with HARSH penalties, will the dumbasses start behaving like the motoring public that they are.
They don't get to play both sides of the fence. Either they are vehicle traffic that has to comply with all vehicle laws, or they don't, and they can get the fuck off the roads, and out of the way.
Everyone involved could not have prevented the accident. The car is at the mercy of the quicker more nimble bicyclist.
The bicyclist is indeed at fault if it went around the stopped vehicle ahead of it.
The car making the turn is not at fault. He did not peg the car stopped (you know...the legal one in the oncoming lane)... rather he pegged the illegal bicyclist who swung around the legal car and into the curb, thereby creating an "illegal" extra lane.
I can easily envision a scenario (I've actually witnessed this scenario MANY times personally), whereby the bicyclist swings around the stopped vehicle so fast, that the turning car has already committed to turning and is entering the turn lane, only to suddenly be confronted with a nimble fast moving bicycle trying to pull a manuever and illegally go around the stopped vehicle.
It happens all the time. The police need to start nailing bicyclists for a "Care Required" mega ticket that affects their insurance and driver's license. Only until such time that we start sticking bicyclists with HARSH penalties, will the dumbasses start behaving like the motoring public that they are.
They don't get to play both sides of the fence. Either they are vehicle traffic that has to comply with all vehicle laws, or they don't, and they can get the fuck off the roads, and out of the way.
49
@48: I don't see you complaining about cars creating "illegal extra lanes" when they pass bikes who are riding to the right of one-lane roads.
And _cyclists_ are the ones playing both sides of the fence?
And _cyclists_ are the ones playing both sides of the fence?
50
@33: At the risk of blaming the victim here (and I do hope your husband fully recovers) I don't think flying through an intersection at 30 mph, when you can see a car coming the other way that just might make a quick left turn, is a smart idea -- whether on a bike or in a car. Defensive driving suggests you slow down, just in case.
51
Look all ways before crossing, everyone, even if you have the right of way, and no matter what mode of personal transport you're in. Pointing fingers won't save your life once you get in an accident.
52
@47 - just don't do it on the Aurora Bridge, ok? I think we distracted them by having all the suicides jump in from of the light rail for now ...
53
The description of the accident sounds like it happened at the Dick's, which is right across the street from the gas station. Either that or the record store/taco truck/doughnut shop parking lot. Either way, that's a pretty dangerous spot for an eastbound cyclist. You've just come down a steep hill, there's a lot of traffic at 12.45pm as cars start to back up on 45th heading for the freeway, and there are tons of people going in an out of the Dick's lot. Also, there are sharrows on that road, and it's pretty common for cyclists to ride between traffic and the sidewalk - either you're going too slow and don't want to hold up traffic, or you're going too fast and want to pass the traffic that's backed up.
Coming down that hill, it's easy to get up to 25mph and it would be hard to stop suddenly for someone turning left in front of you. Especially if there's a line of cars, it could be hard to see that one car had stopped to let another car through.
If that's what happened - line of cars, one car let another one through and cyclist was going too fast down the hill to stop - it doesn't sound like anyone was being an asshole. It was just bad timing at a dangerous spot where no one had good visibility. It was an accident.
Coming down that hill, it's easy to get up to 25mph and it would be hard to stop suddenly for someone turning left in front of you. Especially if there's a line of cars, it could be hard to see that one car had stopped to let another car through.
If that's what happened - line of cars, one car let another one through and cyclist was going too fast down the hill to stop - it doesn't sound like anyone was being an asshole. It was just bad timing at a dangerous spot where no one had good visibility. It was an accident.
54
I was with a friend once. We had just parked @ Alki Beach. My friend (who had been driving) opened the door to get out at the exact same moment a bicyclist swung out from behind the car and smacked right into the open driver side door and took the car door off. The poor guy was real hurt, my friend felt awful, but there was no avoiding what happened on their part. My friend looked behind them into oncoming traffic to make sure it was safe, but because the bicyclist was coming up right behind the car (rather beside it) they couldn't see him coming.
The bicyclist was found at fault and not only had to pay their own medical bills but also for the door that they took off my friends' car.
It's not always the driver's fault. But the bicyclist is the one that gets HURT most. Just be careful. Who care's who is at fault if you could have prevented putting yourself in the hospital? Shouldn't self-preservation be first and foremost in your mind? Not "I'm allowed to be here and therefore I can pay 'less' attention."
The bicyclist was found at fault and not only had to pay their own medical bills but also for the door that they took off my friends' car.
It's not always the driver's fault. But the bicyclist is the one that gets HURT most. Just be careful. Who care's who is at fault if you could have prevented putting yourself in the hospital? Shouldn't self-preservation be first and foremost in your mind? Not "I'm allowed to be here and therefore I can pay 'less' attention."
55
I was staying out of this, but the sentence @48, "The car is at the mercy of the quicker more nimble bicyclist" just demands a response.
You, sir, are a dumbass. An average bicycle, with a rider on top of it, weighs 180 lbs. An average car, with a driver in it, weighs 4,021 pounds. There are approximately 250 million registered motor vehicles on U.S. roads, and approximately 2.8 million bikes. There is simply no question which is the dominant mode of transportation in this country. For all intents and purposes, bicycles don't even exist as a mode of transit. On the rare occasion when the two do intersect, the bicycle and the bicyclist is ALWAYS the damaged party, often mortally so, regardless of who is at fault.
And the car is "at the mercy" of the bicyclist?!?! I reiterate: you are a fool, a moron, and a dumbass.
You, sir, are a dumbass. An average bicycle, with a rider on top of it, weighs 180 lbs. An average car, with a driver in it, weighs 4,021 pounds. There are approximately 250 million registered motor vehicles on U.S. roads, and approximately 2.8 million bikes. There is simply no question which is the dominant mode of transportation in this country. For all intents and purposes, bicycles don't even exist as a mode of transit. On the rare occasion when the two do intersect, the bicycle and the bicyclist is ALWAYS the damaged party, often mortally so, regardless of who is at fault.
And the car is "at the mercy" of the bicyclist?!?! I reiterate: you are a fool, a moron, and a dumbass.
56
@55
I should add (in case anyone is questioning) that the fact that they bicyclist swung out from behind the car was based on statements from several others that witnessed what happened. All we knew (from inside the car) is that we didn't see him and then he was suddenly flung over the door.
I should add (in case anyone is questioning) that the fact that they bicyclist swung out from behind the car was based on statements from several others that witnessed what happened. All we knew (from inside the car) is that we didn't see him and then he was suddenly flung over the door.
58
@51: I totally agree. All of us should be more careful/aware, not speed—both cyclists and cars—and more respectful of the fact that we have to share this crazy, overpopulated world, not carve out and defend our own personal space on it.
Cyclists, try to remember that cycling is FUN. Take it slow. If you're in such a hurry then drive your car. Don't make commuting, of all things, a race/competition.
Drivers, try to remember that cyclists are the least of your problems on our crowded roads. Consider how many times a cyclist has irritated you versus how many times a driver in a car has irritated you: I'm guessing a million times less, right? Give them a break.
Cyclists, try to remember that cycling is FUN. Take it slow. If you're in such a hurry then drive your car. Don't make commuting, of all things, a race/competition.
Drivers, try to remember that cyclists are the least of your problems on our crowded roads. Consider how many times a cyclist has irritated you versus how many times a driver in a car has irritated you: I'm guessing a million times less, right? Give them a break.
59
If bicycles have to act exactly like cars, then they should take a full lane and get to go on the freeway. Cars can pass bikes, and bikes can pass cars. If you are turning you have to yield. Of course everyone has to be careful, and should only pass on the left, and shouldn't go too fast for conditions, but still, bicycles are legally allowed to pass cars when there is one lane and a turning car has to yield.
60
The usual reason one car stops as a courtesy to let another car turn is that traffic is congested (as it often is on 45th) and backed up to an extent that would make it difficult for the oncoming vehicle to execute the turn at all in the normal flow of traffic.
If this was the case, the cyclist would have been overtaking not just one stopped car, but many.
If this was the case, the cyclist would have been overtaking not just one stopped car, but many.
61
@55 Gurldoggie you are the dumbass if you can't understand the intent behind my point. It isn't simply a matter of only the numbers and physics you pointed out. There is a completely different scenario of a large slow(er) moving vehicle (like a car doing 15-20 mph and entering an intersection, and a speeding bicycle going faster than 25 mph swerving around a stopped vehicle ahead of it and inserting itself into the intersection from behind an obstructed view (the afore mentioned stopped vehicle ahead of it) and plowing thru an intersection.
No tell me genius. Isn't the lighter vehicle, that has the ability to make quicker turns, (ohhh and having the ability to STOP quicker given the very stats you used), and having a vehicle that can be manuevered faster make it MORE NIMBLE?
Dumbass.
Get the fucking bikes off the road and you wouldn't EVER have this problem. Otherwise the bikes can follow downtown traffic laws, and be considered equivalent to cars concerning turning, overtaking, passing, and traffic light laws.
No tell me genius. Isn't the lighter vehicle, that has the ability to make quicker turns, (ohhh and having the ability to STOP quicker given the very stats you used), and having a vehicle that can be manuevered faster make it MORE NIMBLE?
Dumbass.
Get the fucking bikes off the road and you wouldn't EVER have this problem. Otherwise the bikes can follow downtown traffic laws, and be considered equivalent to cars concerning turning, overtaking, passing, and traffic light laws.
62
What's with all the hostility?
I ride my bike and drive a car and can testify that I have seen plenty of dumb cyclists (riding against traffic on one-way streets, riding without a front light in the dark, riding too close to parked cars), and I have also had plenty of drivers do dumb things that have endangered me on my bicycle (pass too close, pass around blind corners, failing to yield when making left turns in front of me). The thing is, it's probably 100 times more dangerous to the other party when a car does something stupid than when a bicycle does something stupid. Being on the streets--motorist, pedestrian or cyclist--is absolutely the most dangerous thing any of us do on a daily basis. The stakes are high. Be careful out there.
I ride my bike and drive a car and can testify that I have seen plenty of dumb cyclists (riding against traffic on one-way streets, riding without a front light in the dark, riding too close to parked cars), and I have also had plenty of drivers do dumb things that have endangered me on my bicycle (pass too close, pass around blind corners, failing to yield when making left turns in front of me). The thing is, it's probably 100 times more dangerous to the other party when a car does something stupid than when a bicycle does something stupid. Being on the streets--motorist, pedestrian or cyclist--is absolutely the most dangerous thing any of us do on a daily basis. The stakes are high. Be careful out there.
63
@61: where should the bikes ride, if not on the road? The sidewalk? Bike paths that don't exist?
Otherwise, do you agree that cars should not be allowed to overtake cyclists on roads such as this one?
Otherwise, do you agree that cars should not be allowed to overtake cyclists on roads such as this one?
64
Reality Check says "Get the fucking bikes off the road and you wouldn't EVER have this problem." A better solution would be to get stupid douche bags like you off this planet and we wouldn't EVER have any problems of any kind.
65
@ 61,
I decided to look up the Washington traffic laws regarding http://www.dol.wa.gov/driverslicense/dri…. If you download the state-issued driver's manual (PDF), and scroll down to the section regarding bicycles (pp78-82), here are some things you should see:
There's nothing in the report suggesting that the bicyclist was breaking the law. If that is correct (and the above quotes from the Washington driver's manual would indicate that it is) then the bicycle was not at fault.
I decided to look up the Washington traffic laws regarding http://www.dol.wa.gov/driverslicense/dri…. If you download the state-issued driver's manual (PDF), and scroll down to the section regarding bicycles (pp78-82), here are some things you should see:
The safety of bicycle riders on the road is a responsibility
shared by both motorists and cyclists. All bicyclists have
the same rights, duties, and responsibilities of a motor
vehicle driver. Motorists and riders who don’t obey traffic
laws can be ticketed...
At intersections you must yield to bicycle riders, the
same as you would for any other motorist...
Bicyclists ride with the flow of traffic and as near to
the right side of the road as is safe. Riders may move
left before and during turns, or when passing another
bicycle or vehicle. Riders on a one-way road, other than a freeway, may ride as near to the left side of the road as is safe...
Look for bicyclists – Scan intersections before entering or turning and yield to bicycles when necessary. When changing lanes, making turns, or when backing,
motorists need to check carefully for bicyclists out of
their normal range of view.
There's nothing in the report suggesting that the bicyclist was breaking the law. If that is correct (and the above quotes from the Washington driver's manual would indicate that it is) then the bicycle was not at fault.
66
Rewind.
That HTML stuff SHOULD have the word "bicycles" in its place, so that the sentence reads, "I decided to look up the Washington traffic laws regarding bicycles..."
That HTML stuff SHOULD have the word "bicycles" in its place, so that the sentence reads, "I decided to look up the Washington traffic laws regarding bicycles..."
67
48. I'll go a step farther: I think we need to find some way to require insurance for cyclists, or if that's infeasible, at least encourage and proliferate it. Given the propensity and risk of accidents, it's just a sensible thing to do for everyone's sake.
68
@67: WA doesn't even require motorcyclists to have insurance. Insane, right?
I ride a bicycle, motorcycle, and drive a car. I'm insured on the last two. I'm not sure if my renter's insurance covers me for the first (it might, actually). I know my car/motorcycle insurance doesn't cover me when I'm on my bike - I've asked them specifically about that in the past.
I ride a bicycle, motorcycle, and drive a car. I'm insured on the last two. I'm not sure if my renter's insurance covers me for the first (it might, actually). I know my car/motorcycle insurance doesn't cover me when I'm on my bike - I've asked them specifically about that in the past.
69
Bicycles are allowed to travel on the right side of traffic where ever it is safe. So we pass stopped or slow traffic on the right sometimes. It is up to us to be safe, hitting the passenger side of a turning car usually means the biker could have prevented the accident. It also usually means the car shouldn't have been making the turn.
70
@10: Montlake is a total screw-up for cyclists. If you're heading south, you're probably on the sidewalk because that's the safe (and designated) place to cross the Montlake Bridge. Then all of a sudden the sidewalk ends and you have to get yourself into traffic. This is true on both the east and west sides of the road. It just plain sucks riding through there. Hell, even being a pedestrian at Montlake is pretty scary.
I assume you were coming up the stairs on the west side of the street, then yeah, the cyclist is going to be looking back over their shoulder to see what's coming, so they can try to merge into traffic. There's really nowhere else to go, unless they try to deal with the crosswalks, the Hop-In and so on.
I assume you were coming up the stairs on the west side of the street, then yeah, the cyclist is going to be looking back over their shoulder to see what's coming, so they can try to merge into traffic. There's really nowhere else to go, unless they try to deal with the crosswalks, the Hop-In and so on.
71
@70 All right I will totally give you that the intersection there sucks. So if the sidewalk is the safest place to be then, okay, but once you're on the sidewalk it is just as much up to you to look out for the peds. Like I said, I was paying attention and avoided getting knocked on my ass (pay attention peeps it may be someone else's fault, but what if you could have prevented it in the first place?). He was not paying attention and had I been less observant (or running to catch my next bus as many do coming up from those stairs) I might have gotten knocked on my ass.
Just saying, if you're gonna be on the sidewalk increase your awareness and accept that the peds have the right of way. If that means you have to slow down at cross walks or places with heavy ped foot traffic, than just do it, or even (GASP!) get off the bike if necessary.
All that said though, I have come in contact with far more pleasant and polite bicyclists in that area than asshole cyclists (in fact I cannot think of anyone I have encountered on their bike that was intentionally being an asshole), and I am sure that it was not even this guys intent to be an ass in the least, I didn't think he was an asshole even when it happened, I just thought 'shit dude, pay attention.' It is purely a matter of looking out for each other and for ourselves.
Just saying, if you're gonna be on the sidewalk increase your awareness and accept that the peds have the right of way. If that means you have to slow down at cross walks or places with heavy ped foot traffic, than just do it, or even (GASP!) get off the bike if necessary.
All that said though, I have come in contact with far more pleasant and polite bicyclists in that area than asshole cyclists (in fact I cannot think of anyone I have encountered on their bike that was intentionally being an asshole), and I am sure that it was not even this guys intent to be an ass in the least, I didn't think he was an asshole even when it happened, I just thought 'shit dude, pay attention.' It is purely a matter of looking out for each other and for ourselves.
72
@71 Somehow the rest of my comment (which suggested cyclists need to be extra-careful on the sidewalk) was dropped when I posted. I always do my best to look out for peds, but it's not always easy to avoid them, since many (particularly around bus stops) have headphones on and can't hear when I let them I'm passing. No collisions so far, but more than a few near misses.
73
I think it's well-established that cyclists eat the brains from live and screaming children, engage in human trafficking, and rape disabled seniors with their creepy little dildo-shaped bike pumps on a regular basis.
Seriously. I mean, roads are for cars. All the roads that were built during the 15,000 years of human history before cars were basically just prep work for the invention of cars. Like the roads in downtown Seattle; sure they were laid out in the 19th Century, but they were laid out for cars. And if bicycles want to use roads, they should be considered equivalent to cars. Especially downtown.
Also? Dogs should be considered equivalent to people and up should be considered equivalent to down.
Seriously. You dumbasses. Jeez.
Get the fucking bikes off the road and you wouldn't EVER have this problem. Otherwise the bikes can follow downtown traffic laws, and be considered equivalent to cars concerning turning, overtaking, passing, and traffic light laws.
Seriously. I mean, roads are for cars. All the roads that were built during the 15,000 years of human history before cars were basically just prep work for the invention of cars. Like the roads in downtown Seattle; sure they were laid out in the 19th Century, but they were laid out for cars. And if bicycles want to use roads, they should be considered equivalent to cars. Especially downtown.
Also? Dogs should be considered equivalent to people and up should be considered equivalent to down.
Seriously. You dumbasses. Jeez.
74
@ 69, read the regs... you're supposed to go on the LEFT because going on the RIGHT is incredibly dangerous...
75
@23 a perfectly good point.
@28 a better one. You win at the-internet-needs-to-remember-reallife-is-still-real.
@42: wrt your last question: that's not an accident, it's called homicide.
@59: bikes CAN go on the freeway, just not downtown - it's how you take a bike trip to Cle Elum from Issaquah, for example.
@74: precisely why passing on the right is only okay if it's "safe". Safe of course is in the eye of the beholder... when I bike, 'safe' is a bike lane or zero traffic. Other folks it's wearing a helmet but going 35mph downhill in stopped traffic. Just sayin'.
Speed of traffic? Illegal pass on right? Stupid yielding? Polite yielding? Did the bicyclist signal? Wear a helmet? Who knows... We could conjecture and complain al lday or we could use our considerable brain power (arguable) and spare time (at 75 comments: not arguable) to craft solutions that help reduce the city's Car VS Bike attitude.
@28 a better one. You win at the-internet-needs-to-remember-reallife-is-still-real.
@42: wrt your last question: that's not an accident, it's called homicide.
@59: bikes CAN go on the freeway, just not downtown - it's how you take a bike trip to Cle Elum from Issaquah, for example.
@74: precisely why passing on the right is only okay if it's "safe". Safe of course is in the eye of the beholder... when I bike, 'safe' is a bike lane or zero traffic. Other folks it's wearing a helmet but going 35mph downhill in stopped traffic. Just sayin'.
Speed of traffic? Illegal pass on right? Stupid yielding? Polite yielding? Did the bicyclist signal? Wear a helmet? Who knows... We could conjecture and complain al lday or we could use our considerable brain power (arguable) and spare time (at 75 comments: not arguable) to craft solutions that help reduce the city's Car VS Bike attitude.
76
@70 & @71:
It's way too dangerous for cyclists to stay on Montlake given all the traffic to UW and getting onto 520.
On Montlake crossing the bridge always take the sidewalk on the east side of the street whether you're going north or south, and take it slow and safe because there's often two-way traffic and peds. Once you've crossed the bridge, take either Shelby or Hamlin East-West and then cross 520 on the 24th ave bridge over to Lk Wa Blvd.
It's way too dangerous for cyclists to stay on Montlake given all the traffic to UW and getting onto 520.
On Montlake crossing the bridge always take the sidewalk on the east side of the street whether you're going north or south, and take it slow and safe because there's often two-way traffic and peds. Once you've crossed the bridge, take either Shelby or Hamlin East-West and then cross 520 on the 24th ave bridge over to Lk Wa Blvd.
79
There are a lot of speculations on this blog concerning this accident. I, however, was the driver of the car that was hit by the bicyclist so I guess it might be helpful to get my take on the incident. Traffic was at a standstill on 45th in Wallingford. I was at a dead stop in the turning lane (westbound), preparing to turn left into the parking lot of that record store next to Winchells and the taco truck. I eat at that taco truck almost every day and am well acquainted with the streets, high pedestrian traffic, as well as auto traffic common to that area. I was, as I said, at a complete stop, and a lady in a white car (also at a standstill, as were all the cars) who was headed eastbound on 45th waved for me to go ahead and cross in front of her car into the parking lot since she wasn't moving anyway. Being, as I said, completely aware of high pedestrian traffic, I looked in both directions and saw absolutely noone. So, I proceeded to turn left into the lot. I did not do so in a rapid manner, since I was already at a stop and there was no need because there were no oncoming cars approaching me that I needed to avoid.
My shocks aren't the greatest and there is a dip in the curb that goes into the lot so I was actually going at a crawl to get my front tires up onto the sidewalk (when given the option, I always do this when no cars are approaching me). After all, why make a fast rapid swoop into a lot if you can make a gentle and easier one. I know I had gotten my front wheels up onto the sidewalk and had just accelerated slightly to bring the rest of my truck into the lot when I heard and felt a tremendous bang into the side of my truck. At this point I should note that, even at this juncture, I still did not see anybody, even in my peripheral vision. In fact, the first thought I remember having was thinking that I had somehow scraped a fire hydrant or something and it had caught into the side of my truck. Then I remember thinking how odd that thought was because I don't recall a fire hydrant being there and I eat there every day at the taco truck. So I brought my truck to a halt and got out, preparing to inspect my vehicle. Even now it had not even remotely occurred to me that it was a person that had run into me. Only after I exited the vehicle and looked up did I see the bicyclist lying in the road and I of course realized at that point what had happened. There were several people already running over, and, thankfully, a passing off-duty emt happened by and took charge until the ambulance arrived. I stayed on the scene of course and waited for the police. They performed their sobriety test on me and I passed with flying colors. I don't even drink anyway. Given that my velocity was essentially zero (as collaborated by many witnesses) and judging by the size of the dent in my car the police tentatively concluded at the scene that I was not at fault and that the bicyclist had to have been going extremely fast. This is further attested to by the fact that none of the witnesses I am aware of saw the bicyclist coming either. To my knowledge, only one witness actually saw the bicyclist but that was only as he impacted the vehicle, not before. From my point of view it was as if he materialized out of nowhere seeing as how I purposefully looked to see if any pedestrians were coming. The investigative officer told me the next day that the bicyclists' father had said that his son remembers nothing of the accident or leading up to it (which is common to accidents with head trauma).
They had the full investigative units there with yellow tape, cameras, etc to process the scene. I probably was there for a good hour and a half. I was pretty upset and worried about the state of the bicyclist. He wasn't wearing a helmet so was pretty banged up.
Then the police impounded my vehicle for "evidence" and I was of course stuck with the tab for the impound lot and had to wait a day for the police to release the hold on the vehicle. This, despite the fact that they themselves said it was not my fault. Examining the tow receipt from the impound lot, I found that from the time the police called the towing company to the time it entered the impound lot was about an hour and six minutes. So, basically, the police didn't have time to take it anywhere for processing of "evidence". They did that stuff all at the scene. They just towed it for the sake of towing it I guess. Anyway, I apologize for the digression. I am in no way trying to compare my situation with that of the injured bicyclist. It is rather a nagging grievance with the Seattle PD. It seems inconceivable that a person who is found, albeit tentatively, at an accident scene to not be at fault, not impaired, have their car towed.
Well, thats about all I can contribute. I hope this clears up any confusions. Most importantly, the officer recently told me that the bicyclist is going to be OK.
More...
My shocks aren't the greatest and there is a dip in the curb that goes into the lot so I was actually going at a crawl to get my front tires up onto the sidewalk (when given the option, I always do this when no cars are approaching me). After all, why make a fast rapid swoop into a lot if you can make a gentle and easier one. I know I had gotten my front wheels up onto the sidewalk and had just accelerated slightly to bring the rest of my truck into the lot when I heard and felt a tremendous bang into the side of my truck. At this point I should note that, even at this juncture, I still did not see anybody, even in my peripheral vision. In fact, the first thought I remember having was thinking that I had somehow scraped a fire hydrant or something and it had caught into the side of my truck. Then I remember thinking how odd that thought was because I don't recall a fire hydrant being there and I eat there every day at the taco truck. So I brought my truck to a halt and got out, preparing to inspect my vehicle. Even now it had not even remotely occurred to me that it was a person that had run into me. Only after I exited the vehicle and looked up did I see the bicyclist lying in the road and I of course realized at that point what had happened. There were several people already running over, and, thankfully, a passing off-duty emt happened by and took charge until the ambulance arrived. I stayed on the scene of course and waited for the police. They performed their sobriety test on me and I passed with flying colors. I don't even drink anyway. Given that my velocity was essentially zero (as collaborated by many witnesses) and judging by the size of the dent in my car the police tentatively concluded at the scene that I was not at fault and that the bicyclist had to have been going extremely fast. This is further attested to by the fact that none of the witnesses I am aware of saw the bicyclist coming either. To my knowledge, only one witness actually saw the bicyclist but that was only as he impacted the vehicle, not before. From my point of view it was as if he materialized out of nowhere seeing as how I purposefully looked to see if any pedestrians were coming. The investigative officer told me the next day that the bicyclists' father had said that his son remembers nothing of the accident or leading up to it (which is common to accidents with head trauma).
They had the full investigative units there with yellow tape, cameras, etc to process the scene. I probably was there for a good hour and a half. I was pretty upset and worried about the state of the bicyclist. He wasn't wearing a helmet so was pretty banged up.
Then the police impounded my vehicle for "evidence" and I was of course stuck with the tab for the impound lot and had to wait a day for the police to release the hold on the vehicle. This, despite the fact that they themselves said it was not my fault. Examining the tow receipt from the impound lot, I found that from the time the police called the towing company to the time it entered the impound lot was about an hour and six minutes. So, basically, the police didn't have time to take it anywhere for processing of "evidence". They did that stuff all at the scene. They just towed it for the sake of towing it I guess. Anyway, I apologize for the digression. I am in no way trying to compare my situation with that of the injured bicyclist. It is rather a nagging grievance with the Seattle PD. It seems inconceivable that a person who is found, albeit tentatively, at an accident scene to not be at fault, not impaired, have their car towed.
Well, thats about all I can contribute. I hope this clears up any confusions. Most importantly, the officer recently told me that the bicyclist is going to be OK.
80
Oh, one more thing....
The photo of the intersection must be a stock one as it shows no traffic and the price of gas is around 4 and a half dollars which is a bit higher then it is at present. And, most importantly, the photo doesn't even show where the impact occurred. It would have been out of frame to the right of the photo. I only bring this to attention because I noticed at least one of the blogs reference the photograph in their posting.
The photo of the intersection must be a stock one as it shows no traffic and the price of gas is around 4 and a half dollars which is a bit higher then it is at present. And, most importantly, the photo doesn't even show where the impact occurred. It would have been out of frame to the right of the photo. I only bring this to attention because I noticed at least one of the blogs reference the photograph in their posting.
81
Seattlite, thanks for sharing. This clarifies things greatly. I was wondering, did the cyclist pass the stopped car on the right or left? I'm guessing the right, which would make him almost impossible for you to have seen.
82
Not sure. I never saw him at any point and he doesn't remember anything. And there were no witnesses to my knowledge that saw him beforehand either. This would seem to imply that he may have emerged from behind the car that waved me into the lot but I have doubts that would have given him enough speed to hit me as hard as he did. But I would agree that it would seem from the right-side of the vehicle that he came. There is a hill that I was approximately one block down from so I know he was at least heading downhill. All I can say with absolute certainty is that I never once saw him. The impact site is just behind my passenger door so when he did hit he wasn't in my range of vision. Had he hit just a foot further up toward the front of my car he likely would have smashed into my passenger window.
83
Thanks for sharing Seattlite. It would appear that my posts @48 & @61 were completely correct.
Still believe the bicyclist was not at fault Matt (from your reply @ 65)? Hmm?
And Doceb your assumption @ 39 & 44 was WAY OFF and very WRONG.
A-hem.
Still believe the bicyclist was not at fault Matt (from your reply @ 65)? Hmm?
And Doceb your assumption @ 39 & 44 was WAY OFF and very WRONG.
A-hem.
84
Thank you for chiming in, Seattlite. I'm glad we got a clear first-hand account of what happened... and glad I reserved any judgment until then.
This cyclist had to be flying down 45th. Past slow and stopped traffic. And without a helmet on. Yikes. It figure he had no memory of the crash... I don't think he was thinking even before it happened.
At least he's okay. Let's hope he learns from this.
This cyclist had to be flying down 45th. Past slow and stopped traffic. And without a helmet on. Yikes. It figure he had no memory of the crash... I don't think he was thinking even before it happened.
At least he's okay. Let's hope he learns from this.
85
@83: I'm just glad that the cyclist is going to be alright. Presumably you also feel that way, though you seem mostly excited to have been right on the internet.
(Besides, it's not like I ever said that the cyclist wasn't at fault. I suggested that accidents like this are not often single-fault, which is usually correct.)
(Besides, it's not like I ever said that the cyclist wasn't at fault. I suggested that accidents like this are not often single-fault, which is usually correct.)
86
a) i find it very strange that so many people, who have nothing at all to do with this accident have so much to say.
b) as the partner of the cyclist, reading these comments, it is very frustrating. i believe this was an ACCIDENT. no one is at fault, but there are certain factors that certainly could have prevented this situation.
c) my boyfriend was riding his bicycle in a BIKE LANE. If anyone has ever driven down 45th they would realize that there are bike lanes on either side of the road, which yes, bikes ride in, on the right of the cars next to them. if that woman had turned around and looked before waving someone on, she might have noticed the bike lane, and the bike. it seems to be a common issue here- no one knows the bike lane is there. if there is a stopped car in the middle of the bike lane at the base of a hill where you have acquired the most speed and there is a car to your left, you don't really have anywhere to go.
d) it is true that he was not wearing a helmet. he usually does. however not a single injury was to his head, his face took all of the pressure. he had holes in his face, he is missing teeth and he has a disc fracture in his neck. please explain to me how a helmet would have prevented any of that.
e) i would like to add that the driver does not have insurance. hi driver! my boyfriend gets to pay for this all now because you were driving without insurance! sorry you got a dent in your big car, though!
b) as the partner of the cyclist, reading these comments, it is very frustrating. i believe this was an ACCIDENT. no one is at fault, but there are certain factors that certainly could have prevented this situation.
c) my boyfriend was riding his bicycle in a BIKE LANE. If anyone has ever driven down 45th they would realize that there are bike lanes on either side of the road, which yes, bikes ride in, on the right of the cars next to them. if that woman had turned around and looked before waving someone on, she might have noticed the bike lane, and the bike. it seems to be a common issue here- no one knows the bike lane is there. if there is a stopped car in the middle of the bike lane at the base of a hill where you have acquired the most speed and there is a car to your left, you don't really have anywhere to go.
d) it is true that he was not wearing a helmet. he usually does. however not a single injury was to his head, his face took all of the pressure. he had holes in his face, he is missing teeth and he has a disc fracture in his neck. please explain to me how a helmet would have prevented any of that.
e) i would like to add that the driver does not have insurance. hi driver! my boyfriend gets to pay for this all now because you were driving without insurance! sorry you got a dent in your big car, though!
87
Oh and just to for the record the driver of the car was considered at fault (according to the investigators) despite the unfortunate complexity of events.
88
@87 Bullshit.
a) we have so much to say because many of us are fucking sick and tired of irresponsible behavior by bicyclists causing accidents, and creating dangerous situations when they are playing in traffic in a dangerous manner. It is a continuing pattern of abuse(s) that continue to show that bicyclists cannot safely mix with automobile traffic and should be removed from arterial streets within city limits.
b) you bet there are. riding slow enough to not get into a major accident would be at the top of that list.
c) Not if the reported details of the accident are correct. You are covering for your partner's negligence. He was clearly in the wrong.
d) You are correct a helmet wouldn't have prevented any of those injuries. Those injuries would seem to indicate he was going at an extremely high rate of speed to sustain that kind of damage.... which clearly indicates that he was traveling in a reckless manner faster than conditions allow.
e) Why should his insurance have to pay anything, even if he DID have insurance? I fail to understand how his reckless and negligent actions should reflect on the automobile driver? Typical liberal bullshit response from you. Tell me genius... did YOUR BFF have insurance himself? Why not? Shouldn't he also have insurance?
Thanks for being an incredibly genuine representative of the bicycling community! You've once again reaffirmed my stereotypes!
Just another reason we should never allow cyclists to play in traffic....
Moving on...
a) we have so much to say because many of us are fucking sick and tired of irresponsible behavior by bicyclists causing accidents, and creating dangerous situations when they are playing in traffic in a dangerous manner. It is a continuing pattern of abuse(s) that continue to show that bicyclists cannot safely mix with automobile traffic and should be removed from arterial streets within city limits.
b) you bet there are. riding slow enough to not get into a major accident would be at the top of that list.
c) Not if the reported details of the accident are correct. You are covering for your partner's negligence. He was clearly in the wrong.
d) You are correct a helmet wouldn't have prevented any of those injuries. Those injuries would seem to indicate he was going at an extremely high rate of speed to sustain that kind of damage.... which clearly indicates that he was traveling in a reckless manner faster than conditions allow.
e) Why should his insurance have to pay anything, even if he DID have insurance? I fail to understand how his reckless and negligent actions should reflect on the automobile driver? Typical liberal bullshit response from you. Tell me genius... did YOUR BFF have insurance himself? Why not? Shouldn't he also have insurance?
Thanks for being an incredibly genuine representative of the bicycling community! You've once again reaffirmed my stereotypes!
Just another reason we should never allow cyclists to play in traffic....
Moving on...
89
I'm not blaming bicyclist and I'm not blaming automobile drivers--the problem is far more complex than one vs the other.
It is a fact of matter that as an automobile driver your visibility is reduced and your response speed is reduces relative to your rate of movement (compare to standard human movement). The fact is homo sapiens have not had an adequate history operating motor vehicles to allow themselves the biological adaptations needed to step into a vehicle and suddenly gain a huge metal body/cage/carcass and then to travel at speeds such that we do. This is why automobile drivers are considered both clumsy and accident prone. This combined with the fact that while driving one must first look out for other drivers also prone to smash into oneself -- this makes bicyclists the last thing in the back of any drivers head (see statistics on car accidents).
Despite the fact that bicyclists have an inherently greater awareness of personal space than someone in a metal box many times greater than someone's own size (there are statistics about that too), they are still very much putting themselves at risk (more statistics). It's illegal to ride your bike on the sidewalk which puts bicycles on the streets in direct danger of the above mentioned automobile drivers by law.
Solution: Lets remove bikes and cars from the same space. This is exactly why bicyclists of Seattle complain everyday about the need to put more bike only space in the city- ie bike lanes. Problem: This is a City and space isn't cheap Cars already occupy 1/3rd of the land area of Seattle and that isn't enough for their growing needs. We can't take space away from cars and give it to bikes, that would upset too many daily automobile drivers who can't sacrifice their over exploited space.
The government recognizes this catch 22 between bikes and cars and therefore grants bicyclists the rights to share the road with cars under legal protection of the law despite the inherent dangers, complexities, and social conflicts.
It's just simpler to let a few people get hurt or killed each year in order to maintain some sort of flow or normalcy in our society.
THIS IS THE REEAAL PROBLEM!!!!! The secondary problem IS ASSHOLES LIKE YOU @88 AND the Vegan cyclist car hater who you undoubtedly picture giving you the bird in traffic, who fail to analyze the problem from a selfless perspective and decide to make the roads a battleground. How naive.
We're talking about people's life and death. Have some compassion. Show some respect. Stop promoting pain, negativity, and selfishness.
More...
It is a fact of matter that as an automobile driver your visibility is reduced and your response speed is reduces relative to your rate of movement (compare to standard human movement). The fact is homo sapiens have not had an adequate history operating motor vehicles to allow themselves the biological adaptations needed to step into a vehicle and suddenly gain a huge metal body/cage/carcass and then to travel at speeds such that we do. This is why automobile drivers are considered both clumsy and accident prone. This combined with the fact that while driving one must first look out for other drivers also prone to smash into oneself -- this makes bicyclists the last thing in the back of any drivers head (see statistics on car accidents).
Despite the fact that bicyclists have an inherently greater awareness of personal space than someone in a metal box many times greater than someone's own size (there are statistics about that too), they are still very much putting themselves at risk (more statistics). It's illegal to ride your bike on the sidewalk which puts bicycles on the streets in direct danger of the above mentioned automobile drivers by law.
Solution: Lets remove bikes and cars from the same space. This is exactly why bicyclists of Seattle complain everyday about the need to put more bike only space in the city- ie bike lanes. Problem: This is a City and space isn't cheap Cars already occupy 1/3rd of the land area of Seattle and that isn't enough for their growing needs. We can't take space away from cars and give it to bikes, that would upset too many daily automobile drivers who can't sacrifice their over exploited space.
The government recognizes this catch 22 between bikes and cars and therefore grants bicyclists the rights to share the road with cars under legal protection of the law despite the inherent dangers, complexities, and social conflicts.
It's just simpler to let a few people get hurt or killed each year in order to maintain some sort of flow or normalcy in our society.
THIS IS THE REEAAL PROBLEM!!!!! The secondary problem IS ASSHOLES LIKE YOU @88 AND the Vegan cyclist car hater who you undoubtedly picture giving you the bird in traffic, who fail to analyze the problem from a selfless perspective and decide to make the roads a battleground. How naive.
We're talking about people's life and death. Have some compassion. Show some respect. Stop promoting pain, negativity, and selfishness.
90
@86 and @87....
This is the driver of the "big car". In actuality, though, its a 2-door Nissan Pathfinder. Not really that big. I'd lean more toward average-size in describing my vehicle. I'd say "big" would be more like a full-size SUV or something along those lines.
Anyhow, I'm not sure where to begin, so I guess I'll start at the beginning. I'm a bit confused as to the very first sentence you wrote....
"i find it very strange that so many people, who have nothing at all to do with this accident have so much to say".
Unless you were, unbenownst to me, riding on his handlebars, you have nothing to do with the accident either. Being the partner of the bicyclist does not qualify unless you were there, which I think we can both agree you were not. That being said, this is a blog-space, so you are certainly free to write any opinions on the matter (as are all these other folks).
Lets see....
"my boyfriend was riding his bicycle in a BIKE LANE. If anyone has ever driven down 45th they would realize that there are bike lanes on either side of the road, which yes, bikes ride in, on the right of the cars next to them".
Now, according to the lead investigating officer who processed the evidence at the scene and with whom I've been in contact with a few times since the accident, your partner doesn't remember anything after leaving that day, certainly not the accident itself. This was reportedly told by your boyfriend himself to his father, who passed it on to the officer who in turn told me. So, that being the case, (unless you believe the police officer to be lying) I find it odd that you are so certain where your boyfriend was riding just before he hit me. Also, I was struck by the fact that you capitalized the work "bikelane," implying your boyfriend was exactly where he was supposed to be.
Toward the beginning of your blog, you state that you believe nobody to be at fault but I find it difficult to ignore the fact that you capitalized the word "bikelane," implying your boyfriend was exactly where he was supposed to be and did no wrong. If I am incorrect in this assumption then I apologize. The thing is, though, people usually put things in all caps when they want to emphasize a point. Then I realized you also capitalized the word "accident" which really threw me for a loop. Are you saying one thing outright (noone is at fault) yet subtly hinting at something completely different (the bicyclist was just where he should have been)? I just cannot, despite my best efforts, figure out what it is you are really trying to say.
But, for the sake of clarity, let us assume he was indeed in the bike lane where you claimed him to be. Even if he were, its really beside the point if he is flying down the hill in said bike lane, whizzing past all those cars sitting stationary in traffic, going so fast that he seemed to appear out of nowhere (something I can myself testify to, having specifically looked westward and eastward before turning and seeing no pedestrians/bicyclists). The size of the dent also testifies to the fact that he was traveling much too fast.
Primarily due to these details and the testimony of on-site WITNESSES, it was, as I said before, tentatively concluded that I was not at fault. I was told this not just by the lead investigative officer but by two or three other officers as well. And yet, despite this, I see you stating that I, the driver, was found to be at fault. Forgive me if I believe the police who were at the scene (and whom I have spoken with since on the phone) over your assertion.
You also stated...
"it is true that he was not wearing a helmet. he usually does. however not a single injury was to his head, his face took all of the pressure. he had holes in his face, he is missing teeth and he has a disc fracture in his neck. please explain to me how a helmet would have prevented any of that".
I'm don't feel the need to "explain" anything. First of all, I am not a doctor. Second, I never said in the first place that a helmet would have prevented anything. I simply stated that he wasn't wearing one and that basically he looked pretty banged up. I didn't go into specifics on his injuries after I found out from the police about them because I figured that was personal information between him, his doctors, and the parties involved.
What else....oh, right.
"hi driver! my boyfriend gets to pay for this all now because you were driving without insurance! sorry you got a dent in your big car, though!"
Hi partner of bicyclist! Boy, you know, nothing gets a point across better than to begin it with a good dose of sarcasm. As I'm sure you can tell by now, I can return it in spades. So...on to the matter of insurance.
Now, all sarcasm aside, I do truly hope that your boyfriend achieves a 100% recovery. However, that being said, I don't see why you are telling me that your boyfriend is forced to pay the bills because I didn't have insurance. This statement itself implies that I was at fault. And, unless there is some court decision I am unaware of, fault has not officially been assigned to any party. Except of course tentatively, on scene by the investigators, who claim the opposite of you.
So, maybe I should follow your lead, sarcastically thanking the bicyclist for running into my door without proper bicycle insurance, and moaning about who is going to pay for the dent in my "big car". Oh, and the impound fees were a joy to pay as well. Lets not lose sight of the fact that your boyfriend, though injured, was not the only one who suffered from this accident.
You know, I didn't want to bring it up in previous posts because I found it largely irrelevant to the accident itself, but, I gotta say, these snide remarks of yours are forcing my hand. And I say forced because I hate sob stories, particularly if I am the one telling them. I don't like anybody pitying me for anything.
However, I got to hear you relate your sob story about your boyfriends medical bills (which, according to some as yet unclear logic, you believe I or my insurance should be covering) so I'll go ahead and lay mine on you.
That "big" car of mine, the one they towed after your boyfriend slammed into it as he flew down the hill, was not only my car but also my home. My wife recently left, along with my daughter, leaving me nothing but the clothes in my closet. Luckily, my sister gave me an old beat-up Nissan she no longer used so I'd at least have somewhere to sleep and keep my clothes. So, I'm terribly sorry I hadn't had the time or money to get it insured. I'm actually a really good driver and have never been in an accident in almost 20 years of driving. What I of course hadn't anticipated was someone on a bike of all things, engaging in such risky and unsafe riding, the result of which this entire blog is the subject.
In my previous blogs I have tried my best to just relay the facts as I recalled them without peppering my account with innuendoes and snide remarks. Whether or not your boyfriends perspective on the accident differs from yours I haven't a clue. I would hope not.
P.S. Thanks @88.
More...
This is the driver of the "big car". In actuality, though, its a 2-door Nissan Pathfinder. Not really that big. I'd lean more toward average-size in describing my vehicle. I'd say "big" would be more like a full-size SUV or something along those lines.
Anyhow, I'm not sure where to begin, so I guess I'll start at the beginning. I'm a bit confused as to the very first sentence you wrote....
"i find it very strange that so many people, who have nothing at all to do with this accident have so much to say".
Unless you were, unbenownst to me, riding on his handlebars, you have nothing to do with the accident either. Being the partner of the bicyclist does not qualify unless you were there, which I think we can both agree you were not. That being said, this is a blog-space, so you are certainly free to write any opinions on the matter (as are all these other folks).
Lets see....
"my boyfriend was riding his bicycle in a BIKE LANE. If anyone has ever driven down 45th they would realize that there are bike lanes on either side of the road, which yes, bikes ride in, on the right of the cars next to them".
Now, according to the lead investigating officer who processed the evidence at the scene and with whom I've been in contact with a few times since the accident, your partner doesn't remember anything after leaving that day, certainly not the accident itself. This was reportedly told by your boyfriend himself to his father, who passed it on to the officer who in turn told me. So, that being the case, (unless you believe the police officer to be lying) I find it odd that you are so certain where your boyfriend was riding just before he hit me. Also, I was struck by the fact that you capitalized the work "bikelane," implying your boyfriend was exactly where he was supposed to be.
Toward the beginning of your blog, you state that you believe nobody to be at fault but I find it difficult to ignore the fact that you capitalized the word "bikelane," implying your boyfriend was exactly where he was supposed to be and did no wrong. If I am incorrect in this assumption then I apologize. The thing is, though, people usually put things in all caps when they want to emphasize a point. Then I realized you also capitalized the word "accident" which really threw me for a loop. Are you saying one thing outright (noone is at fault) yet subtly hinting at something completely different (the bicyclist was just where he should have been)? I just cannot, despite my best efforts, figure out what it is you are really trying to say.
But, for the sake of clarity, let us assume he was indeed in the bike lane where you claimed him to be. Even if he were, its really beside the point if he is flying down the hill in said bike lane, whizzing past all those cars sitting stationary in traffic, going so fast that he seemed to appear out of nowhere (something I can myself testify to, having specifically looked westward and eastward before turning and seeing no pedestrians/bicyclists). The size of the dent also testifies to the fact that he was traveling much too fast.
Primarily due to these details and the testimony of on-site WITNESSES, it was, as I said before, tentatively concluded that I was not at fault. I was told this not just by the lead investigative officer but by two or three other officers as well. And yet, despite this, I see you stating that I, the driver, was found to be at fault. Forgive me if I believe the police who were at the scene (and whom I have spoken with since on the phone) over your assertion.
You also stated...
"it is true that he was not wearing a helmet. he usually does. however not a single injury was to his head, his face took all of the pressure. he had holes in his face, he is missing teeth and he has a disc fracture in his neck. please explain to me how a helmet would have prevented any of that".
I'm don't feel the need to "explain" anything. First of all, I am not a doctor. Second, I never said in the first place that a helmet would have prevented anything. I simply stated that he wasn't wearing one and that basically he looked pretty banged up. I didn't go into specifics on his injuries after I found out from the police about them because I figured that was personal information between him, his doctors, and the parties involved.
What else....oh, right.
"hi driver! my boyfriend gets to pay for this all now because you were driving without insurance! sorry you got a dent in your big car, though!"
Hi partner of bicyclist! Boy, you know, nothing gets a point across better than to begin it with a good dose of sarcasm. As I'm sure you can tell by now, I can return it in spades. So...on to the matter of insurance.
Now, all sarcasm aside, I do truly hope that your boyfriend achieves a 100% recovery. However, that being said, I don't see why you are telling me that your boyfriend is forced to pay the bills because I didn't have insurance. This statement itself implies that I was at fault. And, unless there is some court decision I am unaware of, fault has not officially been assigned to any party. Except of course tentatively, on scene by the investigators, who claim the opposite of you.
So, maybe I should follow your lead, sarcastically thanking the bicyclist for running into my door without proper bicycle insurance, and moaning about who is going to pay for the dent in my "big car". Oh, and the impound fees were a joy to pay as well. Lets not lose sight of the fact that your boyfriend, though injured, was not the only one who suffered from this accident.
You know, I didn't want to bring it up in previous posts because I found it largely irrelevant to the accident itself, but, I gotta say, these snide remarks of yours are forcing my hand. And I say forced because I hate sob stories, particularly if I am the one telling them. I don't like anybody pitying me for anything.
However, I got to hear you relate your sob story about your boyfriends medical bills (which, according to some as yet unclear logic, you believe I or my insurance should be covering) so I'll go ahead and lay mine on you.
That "big" car of mine, the one they towed after your boyfriend slammed into it as he flew down the hill, was not only my car but also my home. My wife recently left, along with my daughter, leaving me nothing but the clothes in my closet. Luckily, my sister gave me an old beat-up Nissan she no longer used so I'd at least have somewhere to sleep and keep my clothes. So, I'm terribly sorry I hadn't had the time or money to get it insured. I'm actually a really good driver and have never been in an accident in almost 20 years of driving. What I of course hadn't anticipated was someone on a bike of all things, engaging in such risky and unsafe riding, the result of which this entire blog is the subject.
In my previous blogs I have tried my best to just relay the facts as I recalled them without peppering my account with innuendoes and snide remarks. Whether or not your boyfriends perspective on the accident differs from yours I haven't a clue. I would hope not.
P.S. Thanks @88.
91
@89 If being factually correct makes me an asshole, then I'm DAMN PROUD of it! I re-read my post from @88, and could find nowhere that I was being an asshole. Everything I typed was spot on. You may not like the facts... they may not agree with your politics... but facts are nasty little details that get in the way of political correctness.
Face it. You are mad that I'm right and there is no wiggle room to find a justifiable excuse for the bicyclist's behaviour, hence the need for a personal attack, instead of attacking the facts.
You can go crawl back in your anonymous hole now...
Seattleite you have my condolensces. I would suggest that you contact an attorney and determine if they can take a pro bono case on your behalf to recover damages from the bicyclist. These types of fools need to learn that reckless behavior has consequences.
Face it. You are mad that I'm right and there is no wiggle room to find a justifiable excuse for the bicyclist's behaviour, hence the need for a personal attack, instead of attacking the facts.
You can go crawl back in your anonymous hole now...
Seattleite you have my condolensces. I would suggest that you contact an attorney and determine if they can take a pro bono case on your behalf to recover damages from the bicyclist. These types of fools need to learn that reckless behavior has consequences.
92
Seattlite, you've been in an accident now, and you didn't have insurance, which is required in this state. Too bad you didn't hit Reality Check's car, not only damaging it, but maybe injuring him in the process. He might not be quite so sorry for you then.
You severely damaged a young man, and not on purpose. If you're not at fault, your insurance would not pay for those damages anyway. If you are found at fault, you would have had the resources (insurance) to pay for those damages. As it is, even if you are found at fault, it doesn't sound like you'll be taking any of the financial responsibility that would normally be expected of the driver at fault, other than getting your car out of impound and fixing the dent. (oh, and a ticket for no insurance.)I'm sure the bicyclist would trade bills with you, let alone damages.
Let the courts decide who is at fault, obviously both parties are hearing what they want from the police, and all of us commenters are not going to be doing the deciding.
Just please get insurance or stop driving, safe or not.
You severely damaged a young man, and not on purpose. If you're not at fault, your insurance would not pay for those damages anyway. If you are found at fault, you would have had the resources (insurance) to pay for those damages. As it is, even if you are found at fault, it doesn't sound like you'll be taking any of the financial responsibility that would normally be expected of the driver at fault, other than getting your car out of impound and fixing the dent. (oh, and a ticket for no insurance.)I'm sure the bicyclist would trade bills with you, let alone damages.
Let the courts decide who is at fault, obviously both parties are hearing what they want from the police, and all of us commenters are not going to be doing the deciding.
Just please get insurance or stop driving, safe or not.
94
@92:
The way I see it I didn't severely damage a young man. All parties on the scene, police and witnesses alike (to say nothing of the dent which speaks volumes itself), concur that he was going way too fast. The way I see it, he severely damaged himself. As I said elsewhere, I hope he heals completely but, given that I was at a dead stop and looked both ways before inching my car up onto the driveway, and the fact that he came down the hill (further increasing his speed no doubt), sailed past all the cars stuck at a standstill in traffic and plowed into me is not my fault. I took every precaution I could. My driving record of nearly 20 years is accident-free. I am well familiar with the rules of the road. The bicyclist was riding at hazardous speeds. That was his choice and there is absolutely nothing I can do about that.
And as for trading bills between myself and the cyclist, I bet he would trade if he could. His medical bills are going to far exceed my impound and no insurance ticket fee. But that, to me, would only be relevant if I had plowed into him and not the other way around. If my driving had been at fault, then you might have a point. As it is, your point falls rather flat in my opinion.
As for insurance, I have no money except to stay alive with. OK, fine, one might say...then stop driving. Well, as I said before, I live in my car. The laws as they exist right now prohibit any vehicle from remaining in the same place for something like 72 hours before it gets towed. Because of this, I periodically move my car to different neighborhoods, doing my best not to park in front of one individuals house longer than a night so as to keep my presence as unobtrusive as possible. So anyone who tells me not to drive should rethink the situation and wonder just what they would do had they no money and lived in their car. Before this incident, I was going to grab a burrito and head to Ballard to park for a week or so. The bicyclist seriously put me out quite a lot. You can compare my "damages" with his all you want, but its largely irrelevant. Apples and oranges. Again, I am going on the view that I am not at fault here. If I were then yes, you would have some valid points. The way I see it, a crude analogy would be if someone were to punch you as hard as they could in the back of the head, not hurting you a bit, but breaking their hand against your skull and then complaining about the damages to their hand. And let me clarify at this point that I am not implying that the cyclist himself is complaining about anything. The closest I've heard from him was the rather bizarre post sent by his girlfriend (see @86 and @87) in which she went, in the space of one blog post, from stating nobody was to blame, to sarcastically thanking me for her boyfriends medical bills.
Given all this, I may consider taking up Reality Check on the advice and suing for damages to my car, a point I had not really considered previously out of sympathy for the bicyclists' condition. But I probably won't, despite the ridiculous post sent by the cyclists' girlfriend. As everybody I'm sure realizes, whether they are for me, the cyclist, or neither, the only two people, when all is said and done, whose thoughts and opinions are going to matter, are myself and the cyclist. And hopefully, things will be handled fairly and justice will prevail in the courtroom. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
More...
The way I see it I didn't severely damage a young man. All parties on the scene, police and witnesses alike (to say nothing of the dent which speaks volumes itself), concur that he was going way too fast. The way I see it, he severely damaged himself. As I said elsewhere, I hope he heals completely but, given that I was at a dead stop and looked both ways before inching my car up onto the driveway, and the fact that he came down the hill (further increasing his speed no doubt), sailed past all the cars stuck at a standstill in traffic and plowed into me is not my fault. I took every precaution I could. My driving record of nearly 20 years is accident-free. I am well familiar with the rules of the road. The bicyclist was riding at hazardous speeds. That was his choice and there is absolutely nothing I can do about that.
And as for trading bills between myself and the cyclist, I bet he would trade if he could. His medical bills are going to far exceed my impound and no insurance ticket fee. But that, to me, would only be relevant if I had plowed into him and not the other way around. If my driving had been at fault, then you might have a point. As it is, your point falls rather flat in my opinion.
As for insurance, I have no money except to stay alive with. OK, fine, one might say...then stop driving. Well, as I said before, I live in my car. The laws as they exist right now prohibit any vehicle from remaining in the same place for something like 72 hours before it gets towed. Because of this, I periodically move my car to different neighborhoods, doing my best not to park in front of one individuals house longer than a night so as to keep my presence as unobtrusive as possible. So anyone who tells me not to drive should rethink the situation and wonder just what they would do had they no money and lived in their car. Before this incident, I was going to grab a burrito and head to Ballard to park for a week or so. The bicyclist seriously put me out quite a lot. You can compare my "damages" with his all you want, but its largely irrelevant. Apples and oranges. Again, I am going on the view that I am not at fault here. If I were then yes, you would have some valid points. The way I see it, a crude analogy would be if someone were to punch you as hard as they could in the back of the head, not hurting you a bit, but breaking their hand against your skull and then complaining about the damages to their hand. And let me clarify at this point that I am not implying that the cyclist himself is complaining about anything. The closest I've heard from him was the rather bizarre post sent by his girlfriend (see @86 and @87) in which she went, in the space of one blog post, from stating nobody was to blame, to sarcastically thanking me for her boyfriends medical bills.
Given all this, I may consider taking up Reality Check on the advice and suing for damages to my car, a point I had not really considered previously out of sympathy for the bicyclists' condition. But I probably won't, despite the ridiculous post sent by the cyclists' girlfriend. As everybody I'm sure realizes, whether they are for me, the cyclist, or neither, the only two people, when all is said and done, whose thoughts and opinions are going to matter, are myself and the cyclist. And hopefully, things will be handled fairly and justice will prevail in the courtroom. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
95
just to let you know..the SUV driver is 35 years old male who drives without insurance plus is such a pathetic immature LOOSER....he went and complained on his SLOG about hitting a bicyclist (A HUMAN who ALMOST DIED) and how it was annoying it was taking time out of his life...It shouldn't mater if it was on a bike or car.. A "PERSON" ALMOST DIED...
96
Dear @95....
Read the facts before you blurt out your opinions. You sound like an idiot. Nobody "almost died". There were some cuts on his face and a slipped disc. The fact that I am 35 and without insurance is irrelevant especially when I (and everyone else present including the police) do not believe I was at fault. Also, I don't recall talking about how annoyed I was about anything (except maybe at the cop who towed my car/home). So, before you respond to something about which you obviously know nothing, you should take some time to actually read what it is you are responding to. After all, you certainly don't want to come off looking like a "pathetic immature LOOSER".......
Read the facts before you blurt out your opinions. You sound like an idiot. Nobody "almost died". There were some cuts on his face and a slipped disc. The fact that I am 35 and without insurance is irrelevant especially when I (and everyone else present including the police) do not believe I was at fault. Also, I don't recall talking about how annoyed I was about anything (except maybe at the cop who towed my car/home). So, before you respond to something about which you obviously know nothing, you should take some time to actually read what it is you are responding to. After all, you certainly don't want to come off looking like a "pathetic immature LOOSER".......
97
Known Facts...
1. The cyclist does not have "just cuts on his face and a slipped disc" the cyclist is dealing with physical plus emotional trauma from the impact of the accident.
2. The cyclist is now sorting though paperwork from the complex medical bureaucracy hoping to find a way to pay for his medical bills while balancing his studies at the university of washington.
ONE LAST FINIAL BLURBED OPINION FOR THE CAR DRIVER...
The "spelling" of "looser" excuse me I mean "loser" is not relevant to this discussion of this bicycle accident but your non-actions and comments towards the bicyclist and his girlfriend have portrayed you as "the meaning" of "loser". The your car is artificial my brother isn't....
**Maybe focus less time writing your sob story and ego-driven responses on the SLOG..then possibly you could learn to help or even understand what others might be going through
1. The cyclist does not have "just cuts on his face and a slipped disc" the cyclist is dealing with physical plus emotional trauma from the impact of the accident.
2. The cyclist is now sorting though paperwork from the complex medical bureaucracy hoping to find a way to pay for his medical bills while balancing his studies at the university of washington.
ONE LAST FINIAL BLURBED OPINION FOR THE CAR DRIVER...
The "spelling" of "looser" excuse me I mean "loser" is not relevant to this discussion of this bicycle accident but your non-actions and comments towards the bicyclist and his girlfriend have portrayed you as "the meaning" of "loser". The your car is artificial my brother isn't....
**Maybe focus less time writing your sob story and ego-driven responses on the SLOG..then possibly you could learn to help or even understand what others might be going through
98
Interesting.....
If this is some attempt to make me feel guilt over an accident that was 100% not my fault then you have failed miserably. If he wants to travel that fast on a bike while all other traffic is at a standstill then that is his business. And your blurb comes off as far more of a "sob story" than mine. Unless I'm mistaken, I don't see anywhere on my blog where I bitch and moan about the dent in my car. In fact, toward the cyclist himself I have been nothing but fair and impartial while maintaining my innocence. You, on the other hand, began this discussion with immature name-calling to which I responded in kind. You're not doing anybody any favors. Also, a little tip: If you are going to accuse somebody of something you should have it backed by facts. Congratulations, you have yet again proven what a complete fucking idiot you are. Keep up the good work.
If the meaning of loser is my "non-action" toward the bicyclist then I'll wear that title with a badge of honor. What exactly did you expect me to do? Show up at his bedside with flowers? Once again, you are assuming guilt on my part. Your blurbs are incoherent at best and completely one-sided and idiotic at worst. I can't even tell what you are trying to say in some parts, such as the following little gem: "The your car is artificial my brother isn't" What the hell does that mean? The typo with the word "looser" was pretty funny since you went out of your way to put it in quotes and write it in all caps thus drawing direct attention to it. But this sentence topped it hands-down. You began a nonsensical sentence and then didn't even finish it. Please write more. They're hilarious.
Known Facts...
1. You are an idiot that struggles with the language of your birth.
2. You present arguments that, when legible, lack any kind of perspective other than that of the victim, thus ignoring the important fact that the cyclist was traveling at unsafe speed and instead focusing your argument on irrelevancies such as the age and insurance status of the driver.
But please don't stop writing. Your blogs are truly priceless. The circular logic and nonsensical unfinished sentences have brightened my evening and for that I thank you....
More...
If this is some attempt to make me feel guilt over an accident that was 100% not my fault then you have failed miserably. If he wants to travel that fast on a bike while all other traffic is at a standstill then that is his business. And your blurb comes off as far more of a "sob story" than mine. Unless I'm mistaken, I don't see anywhere on my blog where I bitch and moan about the dent in my car. In fact, toward the cyclist himself I have been nothing but fair and impartial while maintaining my innocence. You, on the other hand, began this discussion with immature name-calling to which I responded in kind. You're not doing anybody any favors. Also, a little tip: If you are going to accuse somebody of something you should have it backed by facts. Congratulations, you have yet again proven what a complete fucking idiot you are. Keep up the good work.
If the meaning of loser is my "non-action" toward the bicyclist then I'll wear that title with a badge of honor. What exactly did you expect me to do? Show up at his bedside with flowers? Once again, you are assuming guilt on my part. Your blurbs are incoherent at best and completely one-sided and idiotic at worst. I can't even tell what you are trying to say in some parts, such as the following little gem: "The your car is artificial my brother isn't" What the hell does that mean? The typo with the word "looser" was pretty funny since you went out of your way to put it in quotes and write it in all caps thus drawing direct attention to it. But this sentence topped it hands-down. You began a nonsensical sentence and then didn't even finish it. Please write more. They're hilarious.
Known Facts...
1. You are an idiot that struggles with the language of your birth.
2. You present arguments that, when legible, lack any kind of perspective other than that of the victim, thus ignoring the important fact that the cyclist was traveling at unsafe speed and instead focusing your argument on irrelevancies such as the age and insurance status of the driver.
But please don't stop writing. Your blogs are truly priceless. The circular logic and nonsensical unfinished sentences have brightened my evening and for that I thank you....
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (98) RSS