VC Overtake Crash in Dallas

Further investigation into the recent overtaking collision of a cyclist in Dallas reveals that, contrary to the opinion expressed by a "trained crash investigator", operating on the shoulder at the time in question would have most likely resulted in much more severe injuries to the cyclist.

The cyclist was traveling south on Buckner, centered in the right lane, having just crossed over I-30 and the highest point of the bridge. Due to gusty headwinds, he was traveling around 10 MPH. It was 11:15 at night, the cyclist was traveling home from work, a 22 mile commute.

The motorist A (who struck the cyclist) was traveling in the right lane. Motorist B, merged right into him from the center lane, cutting him off. Motorist A swerved right onto the shoulder to avoid a collision. Motorist B, upon seeing the cyclist directly in front of him, swerved left to pass him, avoiding a sideswipe by inches. His left tires were about two feet into the next lane as he passed the cyclist.

When asked, the cyclist allowed that the perceived high speed of motorist B may have been due to the close proximity of him when he went by and not empirically true.

Motorist A saw the cyclist after he began to re-enter the roadway, and he swerved right in a belated attempt to avoid him. The cyclist was struck in his right calf by the PT Cruiser's front bumper, and his right hip, arm and shoulder bounced against the left window post, breaking the mirror off of the car. The cyclist then landed on his right side, banging his head on the pavement. Motorist A stopped to render aid and call for help, as did many a passerby. Motorist B fled.

Motorist A was operating without insurance.

The Dallas Police Officer interviewed for this piece described himself as a "trained crash investigator". He cited many reasons why it was not prudent for a cyclist to operate on that roadway. "It is a high-speed road", (Signed MSL 40 MPH), "It was late at night on St. Patrick's Day", "Two out of three people in that area are intoxicated that time of night", "He was obscured by the crest of the bridge for following traffic", and a few others.

He insisted that a better route for a cyclist was to travel on the improved shoulder. He was unswayed when it was pointed out that it was debris strewn and still covered with sand from the winter storms. It has ceramic reflectors placed in diagonal lines every twenty feet to indicate it is not a travel lane. The chances of cyclist striking debris and crashing or damaging his tires is heightened by the darkness.

When asked; "What is the cyclist to do when the shoulder ends?" He had no answer. (The shoulder ends when the bridge ends. There are no signs to warn either cyclists of this or to warn motorists that cyclists must re-enter the roadway.)

He insisted for a while that a cyclist must operate to the right edge of the roadway at all times, until he read for himself the actual statute. He didn't notice that a further right position would have almost certainly resulted in graver injuries.

When he was asked how long a couch in the right lane would last before being hit, he said it would be hit "Within minutes." This reveals his low opinion of the driving skills of Texas drivers, despite the pervasive evidence to the contrary.

As for his objection that the cyclist was obscured by the crown in the bridge, this is entirely speculative on his part. The cyclist had a Planet Bike Superflash tail light about three feet above the pavement, and numerous reflectors both above and below it. Sight lines are more than ample for vehicles operating within the speed limit.

He then retreated to "It's just common sense" argumentation and insisted that the cyclist was a contributory cause of the accident. "He may have a right to the roadway, but he would still be dead."

It is not yet known if any citations will be issued.

Image courtesy of Keri Caffry

Dallas Cyclist Struck By Car

March 17, 2011, Dallas.

At about 11:30 PM a local man on a bicycle was struck by a car on Buckner Blvd. while crossing the I-30 freeway. Witnesses said he was traveling in the right lane rather than on the wide shoulder, and that he had blinking lights and reflectors.

A "trained crash investigator" from the Dallas Police Department said the blame for the accident rests with the cyclist. "It's just common sense; You are begging for trouble if you ride in the roadway when there is a good shoulder nearby."

The cyclist was taken to Baylor hospital and released. The motorist was shaken up but refused medical treatment at the scene.

An Amusing Interchange

Alternate title: ChipSeal Has Too Much Time On His Hands!

The newsOK has a rather poor story highlighting a number of attacks on cyclists by bully-motorists. Naturally, the comments to the story is where the fireworks are! Once again, I couldn't help myself, and now I am subjecting both of my beloved readers to my illness. You may be excused if you wish.

My comments will be in blue and the commenter's will be in red.

GRANT said: Hmmm. 180 pound man on a 25 pound bike vs. a 180 pound man in a 3000 pound car. I wonder who wins that one? Sorry bikers. I don't condone the acts of borderline violence, but I also think you guys need to get off the road... especially when you ride as large, slow-moving packs that back up traffic. [Hmmm. We need to get off the road because when we are the majority of road users at a particular location, we define what “normal traffic” is, not motorists, like you are used to. Color me un-persuaded.]

I'm all about your right to ride and exercise and save gas and all, [Pay no attention to my previous comment where I opine that you ought to get off the road!]but I'm more afraid that I'm gonna kill one of you. I about nailed a guy riding on Broadway extension, going about 20 MPH, during rush hour! [So you are admitting that you are a poor driver, one who is likely to hit other vehicles in the road in front of you?]He was single-handedly making three lanes of traffic very dangerous, all because he wanted to be defiant and prove that he had a right to the road. Come on! [Who was making the conditions dangerous? Are you able to read minds? How do you know what motivated this cyclist to travel on the PUBLIC road?]

Give me a safe, bike only route that connects major hubs of the cities (using railroad or utility right of ways or roads with wide shoulders), and I'll join you. I'd love to ride SAFELY. [So would we. Perhaps it is folks with attitudes like yours that are making it dangerous.]I just can't believe that we keep talking about spending $8-10 million or more on light rail service (that will never be utilized fully and always lose money), and yet we don't think about spending a fraction of that on a bike route that connects Edmond, Norman, Moore, Yukon, Tinker AFB, and Downtown. [We already have plenty of bike route connections between those cities; They are called PUBLIC roads, thank you very much!]

KRISTI said: This issue has been so irritating this summer. Bicycles should NOT be allowed on the road. [Bicycles are allowed by law. Call your state representative.] If you can't ride 3-wheelers, 4-wheelers, dune buggies, or golf carts on the road, why is it legal for a bicycle that can't even get up to a decent speed? [Because our right to travel by our own power ought not be limited just because automobiles have become more powerful. Our right-of-way is to be accommodated as would any other slow moving vehicle.] Not only are they dangerous for everyone involved, they also hold up traffic which makes tempers rise even more. Its just ridiculous. [It actually seems that it is the unwillingness of motorists to respect the right-of-way of bicyclists that is producing the dangerous conditions. Are cyclists throwing trash and objects at automobiles?

Cyclists ARE traffic according to state law. It is not cyclists that are producing rush hour gridlock. Automobiles, buses, and traffic lights are holding up a lot of traffic, bicyclists- well, not so much.]

If you absolutely must ride your bike, ride it in a park or on the sidewalk where it belongs and where the only person you can hurt is yourself. [Because everyone knows that bicycles are toys, and motor-cars are serious grown up toys. Kristy, what part of “public“, in public road, don‘t you understand?]

I live on a section line road and its very hilly. There are no sidewalks. The speed limit is 50 but unfortunately everyone drives faster on it, whether they should or not. [Damn those scofflaw motorists!] But if someone flies over the top of one of those hills and a bicycle is there, guess what? Someone's going to get hurt or possibly killed because the cyclists didn't have enough common sense to stay off the road. [Yep, it is those darn cyclists! It has nothing to do with the operators of the automobiles driving too fast for the conditions, failing to exercise due care, recklessly driving in a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property. Naw, that ain’t it!]

I wish I knew what genius decided that not only are bicycles street legal but that they should have the right-of-way. [It would seem your idea is to have faster traffic have the right-of-way, and all the slower vehicles must yield to overtaking traffic. I bet I could drive a motor-car faster than you Kristy. Will you stay out of my way?] Earlywine Park in OKC has a nice walking track, and its marked so you know how far you've gone. Ride your bicycles there where your [sic] safe.

CHRISTOPHER said: Why would you ride your bike on a road without a wide enough shoulder? [Because it is not as safe, for many reasons. We have a right to the road, so it is really none of your business.] Be considerate to others and maybe you will not get attacked. [We are considerate, we are lawfully operating our vehicles on the public road. Are you justifying violence?]

I support people getting out and about but there is a line. Some people have to be places and you are upholding their progress. [Why is your trip on the public road of more importance than mine?] I often am the one found cussing behind a cyclist just because they want to enjoy the scenery. [How considerate of you.]

My job requires me to be somewhere quickly. Just to top a hill and see someone doing 10mph that I can not pass without putting them in danger puts me in a pickle. [If your job were so important that slower traffic needs to get out of your way, we would have equipped you with red lights and a siren. Since you are apparently not THAT important, may I suggest you manage your time better, leave earlier or use a different route.]

Recently in Edmond a cyclist almost got creamed by me. [You are a poor driver too?] Not on purpose. [You wish you could be a good driver but you just can’t seem to manage it?] Just the fact he was riding ignorantly. [Really? Do explain!] He was in the right lane in heavy traffic. [What lane should he have been in, if he were not’t so cussedly ignorant?] He was also in the middle of the lane. [So were you!] He also had a sidewalk he could of used. [Yes he could’ve, but THAT would have been an ignorant move! Dangerous too, about eight times more dangerous than riding where he did ride. It was probably illegal as well. I am not so sure it was the cyclist that was the ignorant one in that encounter. Isn’t the freedom of speech great! It makes it so much easier to spot the idiots among us!]

Point blank cyclist [sic] be considerate of others. Pick your path wisely for your safety. [Point blank Christopher, learn the rules of the road. Motorists have a duty to drive their automobiles with due care and in a safe manner. See to it that you are mindful of that.]

Grant I love your idea. That is truly actually an awesome one. One that would probably prove useful. That is also why they probably will never use it. LOL

TERRY said: Just the other morning I am driving down old 77 and two bikers [sic] are driving on the shoulder causing me to move to the left some. Unfortunately there were 3 cars driving the opposite direction. [Goodness! What ever could you do! I hope you applied your brakes and waited for a gap in traffic so that you were able to perform your primary duty of using due care.] Fortunately I did not run anybody off the road.

I have no problem with bikers [sic], I have problems when they use the road when there are sidewalks that can be used. [Why do you drive your automobile on the road, and avoid driving it on the sidewalk? The answer that that just popped into your mind is a reason why cyclists do not travel on the sidewalk.] These bikers [sic] need to use some common sense when they are riding.

People can exercise free speech but violence in any way is not right.

TIM said: Are you people serious? Terry, riding on sidewalks is ILLEGAL in Oklahoma City, Edmond, Norman and many other cities. Riding on the road is LEGAL. Taking the lane when needed is LEGAL. It has nothing to do with defiance, it has everything to do with using a bicycle as a legal, non-polluting healthy means of transportation.

Christopher, the cyclist you described was not riding ignorantly by taking the lane, he/she was riding safely. Why don't you folks try slowing down, paying attention and treat ALL road users with respect.

KRISTY comments again: Tim, are you serious? Or are you just trying to rile everyone up? [Tim is serious. You however, are about to display near criminal hubris.]

Surely you can see how dangerous it makes the roads when a bicycle is on it? [What makes you think it is the cyclists that are creating dangerous conditions?] Cyclists are lucky that people do pay attention or there would be a whole lot more deadly accidents. [So it is not cyclists causing the problems, it is the inattentive operators of automobiles! I see that you agree with Tim. So it must be you that is trying to “rile everyone up“!]

To be fair, it isn't only bicycles, but walkers and runners as well, although they usually do get over. [Is that on the hilly section line road that you said everyone is speeding on? It sounds to me that the reckless scofflaw motorists are the lucky ones! Lucky they are not in prison for manslaughter.]

Perhaps we should all start a petition to get the laws changed so that cyclists are allowed to ride on the sidewalks where it is safer, and not allowed on the roads. It makes so much more sense and everyone wins. [Ah, yes. I want to take away cyclist’s rights because they occasionally inconvenience me and force me to be a more careful driver. Just say it Kristy; “It’s all about me! I should always be able to drive at top speed!”]

TIM responds: Kristi, statistically it has been proven that due to obstacles, curb-cuts and intersections is is exponentially more dangerous to ride on a sidewalk than on a road. That is why it is illegal.

Now for a history lesson; were it not for the efforts of the League of American Wheelmen (now known as the League of American Bicyclists) you would not HAVE paved roads to drive on. [A wee bit over the top, Tim, but your heart’s in the right place. It is a bit unreasonable to imagine that not one motorist in 150 years would come up with the idea of paved roads. But from what I’ve read here, I am fairly sure the imaginative motorist would not be from Oklahoma!]

Bottom line, we have the right to be there, are subject to the same rules and bear the same responsibilities.

STACY chimes in with: No wonder there are tensions[.]

I don't like cyclists myself, they don't pay attention to the laws while riding, they exepect [sic] you to let them run an intersection[.] if [sic] you don't they get mad, [sic]

they [sic] have little side mirrors on their helmets, which is a waste [sic] because if they used them [sic] they could see the 10 cars stacked of [sic] behind them on [sic] get the #$@# over instead of insisting [sic] riding 2 and 3 wide on the roadway. [You have made a very confusing series of statements. On one hand, you are upset at the cyclists who break the laws. And then, astonishingly in the next breath, you are upset at cyclists who are obeying the law!]

Tim then says: And we don't like you either. So there.

While being snarky can be fun, I am trying to make a point. These folks are a very small minority of drivers. They have self-selected themselves and so cannot in any stretch of the imagination be considered a representative sample of any diverse population.

But they also do not hold their opinions in a social vacuum, either. Outside of those who acted out and physically attacked cyclists, these folks are the extreme edge of those who are hostile to cyclists. However, their positions reflect at least some of the community attitudes about traffic, the responsibility of motorists, civility on the highways, notions of right-of-way and impeding traffic.

I hope that some of my snarky comments really do point to a place that once was; Where lawfulness and civil behavior on the public way was expected of one another and common, and where I long for America to return to.

A difficulty that we face is that operating a motor vehicle today has become such an everyday common event that we have become callous to the terrible consequences of mishaps, and we have become cavalier about driving on the public way.

We have become a people who like to style ourselves as victims. We cannot countenance the idea that we may have some personal responsibility for the circumstances we find ourselves in.

We expect to be treated with grace and kindness, but feel no duty to extend such gifts to others. We are quick to take offense, but judge our own actions with gentler standards. We expect to receive the benefit of the doubt, but assume the worst motivations of others.

Hard times are upon us, perhaps it will be a catalyst for good. Bicycle advocates should watch for opportunities to shape the public's notions of what it means to be a good citizen in public spaces.

Who Is Hogging This Lane?

This is a typical example of some of the roads I travel on. (About 30% of the time.) This one is unusual in that a dashed line has been painted down the center. The posted speed limit is 30 MPH.

You can tell from the ruts worn into the lanes where cars naturally position themselves. But when faced with oncoming traffic, motorists will crowd the edge of the lane as this person is.

On these roads I ride in the left tire track, about where my bike in the picture is positioned. In so doing, I am in compliance of the FTR and SMV laws, which compel me to ride as far to the right as practicable.

Perception VS. Reality

After the incident with with Mr. Maniac as described in the previous post, and while I was calming myself down, a motorist pulled onto the road behind me from a side street after yielding as I passed.

She remained behind me for about 20 seconds and, as we approached the stop sign at Martin Luther King Street, she started to pass. It is obvious she has mis-judged the space available before the stop sign, because there wouldn't be room to get by in time to clear me! I am already wondering if she will encounter opposing traffic before she can clear the intersection, since she will be in the oncoming traffic lane at the stop sign.


So with about two car lengths from the intersection, I begin slowing while she is alongside me in the next lane. There is a stop sign on our road and the cross traffic does not stop. Thus, I am astonished when she guns it- turning sharply enough to make her tires squeal as she makes a right turn at the intersection at about 20 MPH. I am forced to take evasive action to avoid a collision with her!

In all the other times that this has happened to me, (An overtake attempt too close to an intersection with traffic control signs or devices) the offender strands himself in the wrong lane, impeding opposing traffic and enduring the embarrassment of his predicament until the intersection clears.

There seems to be a compulsion by some motorists to pass cyclists in the road. This lady seemed to perceive that I was going slower than I actually was, even though she had followed behind and paced me for a short period of time. Apparently, she also thought that the space available up to the intersection was greater than it really was. She must have poor decision making skills at the least, or she is unable to operate outside of her pre-conceived expectations. I have no doubt that she would describe herself as a good driver, though!

Maybe she didn't expect a bicycle to be using the space a motor vehicle would. Maybe she didn't expect me to be traveling at 15 MPH. She panicked when reality asserted itself and she found herself in the wrong lane at the intersection.

This is the first right-hook that has happened to me in Texas! To put it another way, it is the first right-hook in more than 13,000 miles of cycling.

Sec. 544.010. STOP SIGNS AND YIELD SIGNS

(a) The operator of a vehicle approaching an
intersection with a stop sign shall stop


Sec. 545.101. TURNING AT INTERSECTION

(a) To make a right turn at an intersection, an
operator shall make both the approach and the turn as closely as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.

Sec. 545.103. SAFELY TURNING

An operator may not turn the vehicle to enter a
private road or driveway, otherwise turn the vehicle from a direct course, or move right or left on a roadway unless movement can be made safely.


Sec. 545.053. PASSING TO THE LEFT; RETURN

(a) An operator passing another vehicle:

(2) may not move back to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the passed vehicle.


Sec. 545.401. RECKLESS DRIVING; OFFENSE.

(a) A person commits an offense if the person drives a vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.

All of these and other traffic offenses were violated in order to avoid a ten second delay. How silly is that?

On y'er right!

Sec. 545.057. PASSING TO THE RIGHT.

(a) An operator may pass to the right of another vehicle only if conditions permit safely passing to the right and:

(1) the vehicle being passed is making or about to make a left turn; and
(2) the operator is:

(A) on a highway having unobstructed pavement not occupied by parked vehicles and sufficient width for two or more lines of moving vehicles in each direction; or
(B) on a one-way street or on a roadway having traffic restricted to one direction of movement and the roadway is free from obstructions and wide enough for two or more lines of moving vehicles.

(b) An operator may not pass to the right by leaving the main traveled portion of a roadway except as provided by Section 545.058

Sec. 545.058. DRIVING ON IMPROVED SHOULDER.

(a) An operator may drive on an improved shoulder to the right of the main traveled portion of a roadway if that operation is necessary and may be done safely, but only:

(1) to stop, stand, or park;
(2) to accelerate before entering the main traveled lane of traffic;
(3) to decelerate before making a right turn;
(4) to pass another vehicle that is slowing or stopped on the main traveled portion of the highway, disabled, or preparing to make a left turn;
(5) to allow another vehicle traveling faster to pass;
(6) as permitted or required by an official traffic-control device; or
(7) to avoid a collision.

(b) Omitted by author for brevity and because it does not apply to our discussion. Look it up if you don't believe me!

(c) A limitation in this section on driving on an improved shoulder does not apply to:

(1) an authorized emergency vehicle responding to a call;
(2) a police patrol; or
(3) a bicycle.

Well, there you have it. There is a very narrow set of conditions that allow passing on the right in Texas. Outside of meeting those conditions, it is illegal to to pass any vehicle operator to the right! Essentially, the only time you can pass on the right is when the vehicle you are overtaking is preparing to turn left.

Furthermore, it is against the law to to use the shoulder to pass a slower vehicle, except under the same conditions as those that allow passing on the right.

On the vast majority of my travels, I am on multi-lane roads or two lane roads without an improved shoulder. As none of these roads have lane widths over 14 feet wide, I ride my bicycle in the left tire track of the right-most through lane. Overtaking vehicles pass me with little or no delay.

But sometimes I ride on two lane roadways (One lane for each direction of travel) that have improved shoulders. About one out of five Texans elect to pass me on the right shoulder, sometimes when they have no impedance to passing me legally on the left. What's with that?

In fact, I have had two motorists pass me on the right when there was no shoulder at all, with two of their wheels about four feet into the verge. (Another woman attempted to pass me on the right but failed when she nearly hit a mailbox before falling back in behind me.) There is no provision in the law for this maneuver. Sec. 545.057 says "On a highway having... sufficient width for two or more lines of moving vehicles in each direction" or on an "improved shoulder". (Sec. 541.302(6) "Improved shoulder" means a paved shoulder.)

It would seem that there are numerically more scofflaw motorists than there are scofflaw bicyclists. There seems to be a lot of driver's license holders that could use a refresher on the laws governing overtaking slower vehicles. For your convenience I have posted those sections of the law above.

ChipSeal