Watch out for the left cross

University of Iowa football player Josh Koeppel miraculously escaped serious injury when the driver of a pickup truck made a left turn in front of him at an intersection.

Koepple’s motorcycle slammed into the front of the truck, and he was thrown into the air, landing on his side in the roadway. It appears in the video that he never made bodily contact with the truck which was fortunate.

This type of accident, (For want of a better word.) is one of the most common causes of serious injury and death to both cyclists and motorcyclists.

The driver of the white pickup truck does not even slow as he makes the left turn, and will no doubt plead that he didn’t even see the motorcycle and rider.

While not excusing this act of gross negligence, it is probably true the driver didn’t see the approaching motorcycle. Watch the video a second time and you will notice a black car, followed by a light colored car waiting to turn left in the opposite direction.

Josh Koeppel was probably hidden from view behind these vehicles as he and the white truck approached the intersection, giving the driver the impression the road was clear, which is why he doesn’t even slow.

Once he starts the turn he is now looking in the direction he is traveling, no longer looking for oncoming traffic.

It behooves the cyclist or motorcyclist to look for vehicles in the center lane making a left turn. (A right turn in the UK.) Assume the driver has NOT seen you, rather than assume he has.  

I wrote about this very scenario previously 

                        

A handy little road bike mirror

Being somewhat of an old skool purist, I am not inclined to hang a bunch of dorky shit on my bike.

However, I recently came across this little rear view mirror that fits in the end of the handlebars.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I would say this would rank at least an 8.5 on the acceptable side of dorkiness, but after using it for about a week, this mirror’s practicality far outweighs the small sacrifice to the pure aesthetics of my bicycle.

For years I have always felt that a rear view mirror on a road bike, ridden by an experienced rider, was totally unnecessary. To see what was behind me, I would simply turn my head.

However, I am no longer as young as my mind thinks I am. I am not as flexible; more important my eyesight is not what it used to be.

I need prescription glasses to see, and when I turn my head I am looking out of the side of my glasses and not through the lenses. The result is that everything in the distance is a blur.

For some time now I have relied on my ears to tell me if a car is passing and this still works well, but the car has to be pretty close, and often the noise of traffic in the opposing lane makes it hard to distinguish a car behind.

This rear view mirror gives me a visual check as to what is going on. If there is nothing coming I am riding about a third of the way out into the lane.

On seeing a car approach from the rear I move over to the right. It seems to me that drivers, having seen me out in the lane, will aim to pass me where I was originally, thereby giving me more room. Other cars following tend to play follow the leader and also swing wide.

Yesterday on my ride I rode about a two mile stretch on a normally busy road, and nothing came past me. It was a great feeling of freedom, to be out there on the smoothest part of the road, knowing it made no difference to other road users, as there was no one behind me.

Being out in the lane means that I am more visible to those ahead of me; people about to make a left turn across in front of me, and those waiting to pull out from side streets and driveways. It is these hazards that come from those in front of a cyclist that are still the biggest threat.

Which brings me to another point; having just got this mirror, like a kid with a new toy I had to be careful I was not paying more attention to my rear, than to what was going on ahead.

I should also point out that it is still a good idea to look over your shoulder and give a hand signal when changing lanes to make a left turn. The looking behind you is a signal in itself that you are about to do something.

From a design standpoint, I can see that the makers of this mirror have gone for an aerodynamic look.

The ball that allows adjustment is inside the rubber plug that fits in the handlebar, therefore the plastic housing could have been at least 5/8 inch (1.6 cm.) shorter.

Also, I would have liked to see the convex mirror round instead of egg shaped. (Giving a less distorted image.)

In my view the designers in an attempt to make this less dorky, have somehow increased its dorkiness; these changes would definitely make it more practical. There is a tendency to bump it with your leg when dismounting; not that this is a big deal, it is easily adjustable.

This mirror called “The Roadie” is available from CycleAware for $20 plus shipping.

I must add that I was not paid for this endorsement; I just thought this could be a product that you might find useful.
  

                        

Labels and other BS from Copenhagen

Labels can be useful; for example if I say “Vehicular Cycling,” most regular readers of this page will know exactly what I am talking about. If you don’t this short video explains it.

To me this is defensive riding that works because for the most part, drivers of motor vehicles will go out of their way to avoid hitting you as long as they know you are there.

It is the inattentive or distracted driver who is the most danger, but by riding predictably, signaling intent, and correct positioning on the road, you make even the most inattentive driver aware of your presence.

For example, whatever direction I leave my home I have to travel a busy two-lane highway. The traffic seems to come along in platoons because of traffic lights in both directions.

When the road is clear behind me I ride out in the lane about two or three feet. When I hear a vehicle approach from the rear, I move over to the right to let them pass.

This has the effect of slowing them down and the first car makes a conscious effort to go wide around me. Each car following does the same.

If I stay close to the right edge of the road all the time, a car approaching from the rear will not slow down and will often not deviate from his line of travel.

A driver of a car three or four vehicles back will not even know I am there.  If people want to label this “Vehicular Cycling” that’s okay; it works for me.

However, I prefer not to be labeled a “Vehicular Cyclist.” I didn’t pay a subscription to join a Vehicular Cyclist’s organization. I have not even read John Forester’s book. (He’s the man who coined the term.) 

I am simply a “Cyclist” doing what is necessary to survive while riding my bike on today’s streets and highways.

I have just read an article by Mikael over on Copenhagenize.com titled “Vehicular Cyclists – Cycling’s Secret Sect.” A secret sect… Really. The writer suggests that Vehicular Cyclists:

“Fight tooth and nail against virtually any form of separated bicycle infrastructure because their theory is based up on the premise that bicycles are 'vehicles' and therefore should act as the vehicles in the traffic, using the car lanes just like cars.”

The article then goes on to ridicule Vehicular Cyclists, comparing them to the Flat Earth Society. According to Mikael it is our own fault, the established cyclists in America and the UK, that we don’t have a widespread cycling infrastructure.

What utter bull-shit. I would love it if my local authority was making my city as bike friendly as Portland, Oregon, or Davis, California. But in the mean time I am making do with what I have. The other alternative is to not ride my bike.

There are many people who would ride a bike but are scared to do so I today’s traffic. It is the avid cyclists who take to the road each day, who are showing others that it is possible to survive out there.

Who knows how many others might be encouraged to try cycling just by seeing us pedaling around the city streets. The more cyclists on the road the more cities are likely to facilitate cycling.

I suggest Mikael does not have a clue what it is like to ride a bike in any American city, or in the UK for that matter. Both countries are steeped in the car-culture, and it is not going to change overnight.

The situation is improving, but slowly; I doubt there will be huge improvements nationwide in my lifetime. All we can do in the mean time is keep riding our bikes, while doing whatever is necessary to stay safe.

                       

Mandatory Helmets: The Deeper Issue

I am troubled when educated and influential medical people call for the mandatory wearing of bike helmets.

Dr. Ian Gillespie (Right.) President, British Columbia Medical Association is making such a call as reported in the Vancouver Sun.

A man like Dr. Gillespie, because of his position, carries a lot of weight and before you know it, politicians are passing legislation to bring in mandatory helmet laws.

Don’t get me wrong, I wear a helmet and I think they are a good idea. However, my helmet is my last line of defense and my best chance of survival is to avoid an accident in the first place.

I do this by following the rules of the road. I stay alert at all times to potential hazards, and try to avoid mishaps before they occur.

Helmets should be encouraged, but not made mandatory. The moment you force people to wear a helmet, you stop a great many people from riding a bike.

At this time, in this economy, oil dependency, and with rampant obesity, we need more people riding bikes.

Mandatory helmet laws, give the impression that cycling is dangerous. There are far more pedestrians killed than cyclists, and moreover, most pedestrian deaths are from head injury.

The pedestrian is hit below the waist, his head either hits the windshield or some other part of the car; or he is flipped upside-down, thrown high in the air, and lands on the hard pavement, on his head.

There is no push from the medical profession to make helmets mandatory for pedestrians.

Would you want to be forced to wear a helmet while walking around town? Many people feel exactly the same way when forced to do so while riding a bike.

If a cyclist is involved in a serious accident, a head injury is only one of the ways he might be killed or seriously injured. For example, in Jarvis, Ontario, Canada, a 21 year old man was riding home from work on the sidewalk.

An SUV made a left turn into a parking lot and the cyclist ran head first into the passenger side window. The glass shattered, and the unfortunate young man cut a main artery in his neck, and bled to death within minutes.

The fact that he was not wearing a helmet was neither here nor there in this case; it was not a head injury that killed him.

None-the-less, this accident should not have happened. It was daylight; had the cyclist been on the road instead of the sidewalk, the driver of the SUV would have had a better chance of seeing him before turning.

The cyclist, lulled into a false sense of security that riding on the sidewalk gives, was probably oblivious to his surroundings and failed to notice the vehicle turning across his path.

The main problem I have with mandatory bike helmet use is that it detracts from the real issue; it is people driving motor vehicles that kill cyclists and pedestrians.

Over the last hundred years or more, safety legislation has been all about protecting the person in the automobile, giving the occupant such a sense of security that he/she drive their cars as if they are sitting on their living room sofa.

There needs to be a sense of responsibility brought back to driving a car, a looking out for your fellow man and woman; especially those more vulnerable, namely pedestrians and cyclists.

This is what Dr. Ian Gillespie should be pressing for, not mandatory helmets for cyclists.

Because when all is said and done, a little piece of foam polystyrene on a cyclists head will never solve the real issue of cycling death and injury. The one of auto drivers being allowed to drive as they please.

It’s a little bit like allowing everyone to go around firing guns, and then making bulit-proof vests mandatory

                        

3 Feet: Most would give a dog more room than that

I’m not sure of the exact count but so far some 16 states have passed 3 foot passing laws for motorists overtaking cyclists.

In some states these bills have passed quite easily, in others they have been vehemently opposed.

Quite honestly I fail to see what the problem is. I doubt most drivers would pass an eighteen wheeler at less than 3 feet clearance; most would come to a complete stop and give a stray dog more room than 3 feet.

So why the big deal in asking the same for a cyclist? In Virginia a bill was recently shot down,

An opponent of the bill, Republican Delegate John Cosgrove, argued that the measure would force motorists into the oncoming lane and make the roads less safe for drivers.

No dumb-ass, it means waiting behind the cyclist until traffic in the opposing lane has passed, then pass when it is safe to do so. At least behind the cyclist the driver is still moving; albeit temporarily at a slower pace.

During any trip by car; count how many times we have to wait behind a vehicle turning left. We don’t sit there a blow our horn impatiently; we wait as long as it takes for a break in opposing traffic so the vehicle ahead can turn and we go on our way. It is all part of our daily driving experience; we expect delays.

Texas recently passed a 3 foot law; however, the governor vetoed it, saying that motorists are already subject to “Reckless and Careless Driving Laws.”

However, this doesn’t seem to work too well in Texas. When a couple on a tandem were hit from behind and both killed last year, no charges were filed against the driver of a pickup truck that hit them.

Opponents of these laws argue that they are unenforceable and point out that police officers can’t get out there with tape measures. These laws are a guideline; when a motor vehicle hits a cyclist, obviously the driver didn’t give the cyclist 3 feet.

There was an exact case like this in Arizona recently (AZ has such a 3 feet law.) where the driver of a garbage truck, struck and killed a female cyclist.

What about other vulnerable people on the road, a pedestrian, or a motorist changing a tire. Common sense and common decency says a driver should slow down, stop if necessary, and then give them as much room as possible in passing.

But of course, if common sense and common decency prevailed, we wouldn’t need 3 foot passing laws.