Alabama Personal Injury Blog - Bicycle

Don't Text or Use a Cell Phone while riding a bicycle

Danny Feldman — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 18:57:29 GMT

This is a continuing blog in a series of blogs regarding annoying or dangerous cycling behavior. It really goes without saying, doesn't it? - Don't text or talk on a cell phone while cycling.

Its embarrassing to me to admit that I have done both. No excuse really, just replying to my wife or kids about mundane topics like where we are going to eat later etc. Obviously, while talking or texting you are distracted from what is going on in the road. Unlike a car, most of the time, it takes two hands to steer/control your bicycle and while talking or texting at least one hand is on the phone and not on the bike. It's just plain stupid! Also, unlike a car, on a bike you are not protected by a ton of steel and plastic.

Given the fact that talking or texting while riding is so obviously dangerous, you wouldn't think that people engage in this behavior; but they do. I have - and I vow not to to do so anymore.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Danny Feldman

Cyclists should not, as a general rule, ride more than two abreast

Danny Feldman — Fri, 29 May 2009 16:20:08 GMT

This is the fourth in a series of blogs regarding annoying or dangerous cycling behaviors. In Alabama, it is unlawful for cyclists to ride more than two abreast see Alabama Code Section 32-5A-263(b) and cyclists "shall ride as near to the right side of the road as practicable." See Alabama Code Section 32-5A-263(c).

Sometimes cyclists ride 3 abreast, thereby taking up the whole lane of travel; sometimes cyclists even ride 4 or 5 abreast, which generally means spilling out into another lane. While these instances are rare, and many times justified (as will be discussed a bit more below), - cyclists are violating the law when they are riding more than two abreast. Of course, riding 3, 4 or 5 wide will aggravate motorists as it makes the cyclists much more difficult to pass. This is particularly true given that motorists who often (wrongly) believe that cyclists have no right to the road, perceive themselves (the motorist) as not only being inconvenienced by the cyclists, but also, placed in danger by having to cross a yellow line. Sometimes, these motorists refuse to cross a yellow line, or even if they cross, they go so close to the cyclist that the slightest mistake by driver or rider results in the motorist striking the cyclist.

Most cyclists, even though legally entitled to ride two abreast, pretty quickly move into a single file line to allow a car to pass. Sometimes, however, the cyclist who has been "pulling" (this is the cyclist at the front of the group who has to work harder while the other cyclists are in the draft) moves to the left in order to drift back to the back of the pack. Depending on many people are in the group, this may take a second or two or could take 20- 30 seconds. Although perfectly legal, this rider is vulnerable if a car decides to pass the group and doesn't give the cyclist room.

At the beginning of many large group rides, police support the same and riders for the first few miles ride more than two abreast. Given that there usually are hundreds of riders all bunched together and given that the roads are being controlled by supporting police officers, and given that this situation ceases to exists after a few miles, this is not particularly dangerous. However, if a group rides several abreast, taking up a whole lane or worse yet, crossing a yellow line, not only is it annoying, it also is dangerous.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Danny Feldman

Cyclists need to use lights and wera reflective devices when riding in dark conditions

Danny Feldman — Thu, 28 May 2009 09:54:00 GMT

It should go without saying, that in order to be safe on the road, you must be seen. Whenever a motorist strikes a cyclists, one of the most common refrains of the motorist is - something to the effect that I never saw the bicyclist. By the way, this often is the same thing a motorists says when they strike another motorist. Motorists have a legal duty to "keep a proper lookout" and motorists are charged with seeing what a reasonable motorist would see if keeping a proper lookout. Accordingly, without in any way excusing a motorist's negligence in failing to see a cyclist, I think it's fair to concede the point that bicyclists are harder to see than cars. They are just not as big. Of course, trucks are easier to see than cars, so conceding this point does not excuse a motorist from failing to see a cyclist.

All of that being said, cyclists should do what they can to help motorists see them. This is especially true when conditions are dark, whether it is in the very early morning hours or at dusk or sunset. Lighting systems are available that are very good, and clearly when riding in the dark should be used - not only so that the cyclist can see, but so that the cyclist can be seen. Likewise, reflective devices, whether these be lights or Velcro strips can allow a cyclist to be seen. In Alabama, the law actually requires that a cyclist have a reflective device so the failure to use one can give rise to the motorist's claim that the bicyclist was guilty of contributory negligence. Different studies show different things about which devices may be more or less effective.

The bottom line is though, that cyclists need be seen. Using lights, reflective devices, and wearing contrasting clothing, all should be high on the list for any cyclist who doesn't want to be hit.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Danny Feldman

Police officers often don't know the law as it pertains to cyclists

Danny Feldman — Tue, 26 May 2009 16:05:55 GMT

Recently, a bicyclist was pulled over in Shelby County by a sheriff’s deputy. He was threatened with a ticket for "obstructing traffic." Apparently, the sheriff had not passed the cyclist as he cycled up a hill and, not surprisingly, no one had passed the sheriff, so a few cars were, in fact, backed up. The deputy told the cyclist that the law required the cyclist to pull over and walk his bicycle up hills or on narrow curvy roads. When the cyclists tried to tell the deputy that the law required no such thing, he threatened them with a ticket.

Of course, this is not the first nor, unfortunately, will it be the last time this sort of thing happens. A few years ago a very similar incident happened and the cyclist in that case told the officer to give him a ticket. The officer did so; the cyclist notified bicycle advocacy groups; and after meetings with City officials - the ticket was dropped.

Alabama Code Section 32-5A-260 very clearly states "Every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle [with very limited exceptions]." The most obvious exception, of course, is limited access roads, like interstates, which have a minimum speed of 40 mph. Almost without exception, no other roads have minimum speeds.

A bicyclist is just like a car or truck - it is traffic. Albeit slower than most cars or trucks, but traffic nonetheless. A bicyclist going up a hill at 10 mph when the speed limit is 45 mph is no more "obstructing traffic" than the little old lady traveling 20 mph in a 45 mph zone, or a large truck laboring up a hill at 30 mph in a 65 mph zone. Aggravating to be behind - sure. Guilty of obstructing traffic - absolutely not. Of course, a bicyclist is much, much easier to safely pass than the little old lady or the large truck in the above example.

Whether the police officers who have cited or threatened cyclists with tickets for "obstructing traffic" truly are ignorant of the law or, as I frankly suspect is the case, know, but don't like the law and want to "cleverly" ensure the world is safe and convenient for motorists and motorists only - does not really matter. The result is the same. No one wants to deal with the hassle of a ticket, whether the ticket is justified, or as is the case here, entirely unjustified. I hope that cyclists and cycling advocates use this recent example to let their elected officials, the Sherriff, city councilors, mayors etc. know that police officers must be properly trained in knowing what the law is as regarding cyclists, and perhaps even more importantly, in enforcing the law in an even-handed manner such that the rights of cyclists are recognized rather than denigrated.

Sincerely,

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Danny Feldman

Cyclists should not, as a general rule, run red lights or stop signs

Danny Feldman — Thu, 21 May 2009 14:48:00 GMT

The main reason why most motorists dislike (or hate, as the case may be) cyclists on the road is the perception (and probably, too often, the reality) that cyclists ignore traffic control devices - namely cyclists run red lights and stop signs. As a cyclist (and as a motorist) let me freely admit that I have run my share of red lights and stop signs. Usually, what this means is that in the early a.m., or some other low-trafficked time, I will treat a red light as a stop sign, stopping, checking for cars, and then going, even if the light is still red, or I will treat a stop sign as yield sign, slowing down, checking for cars (and cops) and then rolling through. Frankly, I'd be quite surprised if anyone reading this blog has not done the same, whether on a bike or in a car.

As regards cyclists, however, failure to abide by traffic control devices seems to infuriate many motorists. Maybe it’s because cyclists always argue that a bicycle, just like a car, is traffic - non-motorized and a bit slower - but traffic nonetheless, and thus that cyclists should be afforded the same rights to the road as motorists. Accordingly, when a cyclist runs a stop sign or red light, he looks hypocritical. The cyclist wants the "right" to the road, but not the corresponding "obligations" of adhering to traffic laws. The fact is that in Alabama and most states, with limited exceptions, the cyclist legally is entitled to be on the road and is obligated to abide by traffic laws.

Accordingly, a cyclist who runs a red light or stop sign is every bit as deserving of a traffic ticket as a motorist that runs the same traffic control device. Obviously, whether you are in a car or on a bike, running a red light or stop sign is dangerous - and without the protection of the car, it is even more dangerous if you are on a bike. Accordingly, most cyclists I know do not, for the most part, ignore traffic control devices. When they do, of course, they must be prepared to accept the attendant risks, being injured and being at fault for causing the collision and/or being ticketed. Most of the time the cyclists that I ride with treat stop lights as stop signs and stop signs as yield signs in very low trafficked areas or at times of day that are very low trafficked (like 5:00 a.m.)

It seems to me, however, that most motorists tend to remember a cyclist failing to stop at a red light more than they would if a motorist did the same thing. And, or so it seems to me, that when this happens, a motorist often sees the cyclist's behavior as being very hypocritical and confirming the motorist's already dim view of the cyclist. Frankly, this is one reason that when a motorist is at an intersection, I tend to remain stopped at traffic lights in the early morning, while my group stops, looks and goes. To me it's really more about not wanting to make the motorists mad (and falling into the stereotype of the cyclists that ignores the law)than it is about safety. Of course, that said, I have seen way too many cyclists play fast and lose with traffic control devices. The fact is that no matter how much it sucks to be left behind by your group, it would suck a lot worse to get hit by a car (or worse yet, a truck) because you ran a red light.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Danny Feldman

Riding a Bicycle without a helmet is just not smart

Danny Feldman — Sun, 17 May 2009 13:00:16 GMT

This is the second in a six part series regarding dangerous and annoying cycling behaviors. Although motorists may not much care one way or another about cyclists who don't wear helmets, it should matter to the cyclist. Riding a bicycle without wearing a helmet simply is not a smart thing to do - and fortunately, almost without exception, most regular cyclists do not ride without a helmet on, period.

I do not have the statistics readily in front of me, but suffice it to say that the statistics show that wearing a helmet saves lives. The most serious cycling injuries, and the injuries that most often result in death, are traumas to the head. When a serious head trauma occurs, the brain swells and/or bleeds (hemorrhage), and unless that pressure can be relieved immediately (that is, a neurosurgeon is there to remove the skull) the person is very likely to die. A helmet absorbs the impact that the skull simply cannot - and as a result, a person who otherwise may have died is left with a slight headache.

Sometimes people ride and because they are going a short way decide to forgo a helmet. The problem is we just do not know when an incident may occur and this short helmetless ride may be your last. I have a very good (albeit not terribly coordinated friend) in the medical profession, who upon receiving a bike as a Christmas gift took it out for a short spin around the block. When he had not returned some 20 minutes later, his wife and small children found him in a daze literally a couple of houses down the street. Apparently, he had hit the curb, went down and struck his head, knocking himself out for several minutes. Luckily, he did not injure himself worse. He no longer rides without a helmet - even for a short distance.

I certainly understand the liberating feeling that comes from riding your bike with the wind blowing your hair (actually, in truth, I remember that feeling given that I don't ride without a helmet anymore and neither do I have much hair to speak of anymore). And, I recognize the fact that a helmet is not a 100% guarantee against a serious head injury. I have, however, gone down head first at about 20 - 25 miles per hour and cracked my helmet from one end to the other. Although I had a pretty badly broken thumb that required surgery, my head was just fine (despite what my wife may think). Looking at the cracked helmet, I could not help but think that but for that helmet, I would no longer be here.

Two last points - always replace a helmet once it has been compromised (been in any kind of impact) as it will no longer protect like it should. Finally, in Alabama, and in certain municipalities in the State, helmets are mandatory - especially for minors. While I personally am unaware of these laws being rigorously enforced, and while I understand the controversy that may exist regarding them (similar to mandatory seat-belt laws), I do believe these laws are helpful if for no other reason than to educate the public and to inform new cyclists about the risks of riding without a helmet.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Danny Feldman

Harrassing a cyclist is dangerous and unlawful

Danny Feldman — Thu, 07 May 2009 16:31:21 GMT

This is the 6th and last blog in a series of blogs concerning annoying and dangerous motorist behaviors. The last behavior that will be discussed is pure harassment. Obviously this is an intentional act by a motorist and depending on the exact type of harassment, it not only can be dangerous and annoying, it also can be against the law.

Harassment may take many forms ranging to yelling at cyclists (typically to "get off the road" or to "ride on the sidewalk or bike path”) to swerving at cyclists, to throwing objects at cyclists, to actually striking cyclists with vehicles. Although no one knows the reason for these types of behaviors, one can surmise that the motorist often is angry at the cyclist for having to share the road (and thus slow down) or that the motorist simply is having a bad day and needs to take it out on someone, or that the motorist thinks its funny to intimidate and harass from the protection of a vehicle. Whatever the cause, such conduct often ends up hurting the cyclist, and in the worst cases, can lead to tragic results, including death or injury to the cyclist and prison for the motorist.

Evens something as seemingly (relatively) harmless as throwing a small object at a cyclist or yelling at a cyclist can have tragic results if the cyclist, perhaps startled by a yell, crashes. Further, throwing an object out of a car traveling at a high rate of speed, which strikes a cyclist also traveling fast easily can cause the cyclist to lose control and crash. There was a case many, many years ago, actually involving a runner as opposed to a cyclist, in which a passing motorist (a high school student) thought it would be funny to intimidate a runner by waving a baseball bat out the window. Unfortunately, the bat struck the runner causing serious injuries and the motorist ending up spending some time in jail for assault and battery.

There really is no way for a cyclist to avoid this type of harassment. Certainly, one can hope that if this happens and a person is apprehended that law enforcement will treat the crime with the seriousness it deserves. My next series of blogs will be on dangerous and annoying cyclist behaviors.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Danny Feldman

Following too close behind a cyclist is dangerous

Danny Feldman — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:34:00 GMT

This is the fifth in a six part series on driving behaviors that are annoying or dangerous to bicyclists. Previously covered were "buzzing," the right hook, pulling out too close in front of the cyclist, and making a left hand turn too close in front of the cyclist. The next behavior is following too close behind a cyclist.

Unlike a car, a bicycle does not have brake lights. A cyclist slows by using his hands to squeeze the brakes. No lights come on indicating that a cyclist is braking. Accordingly, a driver that is following too closely behind will not automatically know a cyclist is slowing because no brake lights will come on indicating as much.

Oftentimes, this behavior is manifested when a cyclist is travelling downhill at a high rate of speed, often 30 or 40 miles per hour or more. Some vehicles for whatever reason, instead of leaving a 2 second gap (the distance the vehicle would travel in 2 seconds, i.e., at 40 mph, this would be 120 feet or about 6 car lengths) often will crowd the cyclist leaving only a car length or less. Because of perception/reaction time, which at a minimum most human factor specialists say is at least 1.5 seconds, there is no way that a driver could avoid hitting a cyclist if the cyclist unexpectedly went down at 40 mph with the driver less than a car length behind. Indeed, at that speed and distance, if the cyclist merely slowed the driver would have a very good chance of rear-ending the cyclist.

It's hard to know why some motorists feel it is necessary to be so close to the cyclist. Maybe the motorist wants to be ready to pass the cyclist, maybe the motorist wants to intimidate the cyclist, and maybe the motorist simply is unaware of how dangerous it is to travel so closely behind the cyclist. Any way you cut it though, this is an annoying and dangerous driving behavior.

Obviously, as a cyclist, you need to make every effort to let the motorist know your intention, by signaling your turns and indicating that you are slowing (usually by placing your left hand behind you with an open palm). Hopefully, the driver will know what you mean. Be careful not to make abrupt movements and although it’s probably a last resort, if you really think you are going to be run down, it’s probably not a bad idea to exit the road as soon as you safely can do so.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Danny Feldman

Other Driving Behaviors that are Dangerous to Cyclists

Danny Feldman — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 10:48:30 GMT

This blog is a continuing series of driving behaviors that are dangerous to cyclists. A driver turning or pulling out in front of a cyclist - often occurs because the driver simply does not realize how fast the cyclist is moving. Of course, there also may be an element of the driver not caring if the cyclist is close because obviously, given the fact that the driver is protected inside a much heavier and larger vehicle, it's the cyclist, not the driver, that is going to get hurt.

Typically, these situations occur when a cyclist has the right of way and the motorist pulls out from a stop at a side street. When the motorist makes a left hand turn in front of the cyclist, if a collision occurs, the cyclist may well end up flying over the vehicle and breaking a collarbone.

These situations also occur when the motorist is traveling in the opposite direction of the cyclist and makes a left hand turn in front of the cyclist. This can be extremely dangerous, especially if the cyclist is traveling downhill at a high rate of speed. At 40 mph, a speed that many cyclists can achieve while traveling even down a fairly moderate downhill grade, a cyclist is moving at just shy of 20 yards a second. Many times a motorist that pulls out simply does not realize how fast the bicycle is moving, and thus does not realize how dangerous the driving maneuver is.

Obviously, while on a bicycle it is appropriate for the cyclist to be dressed so that the motorist can see him, and further, the cyclist should always be looking down the road for motorists stopped at side streets and for motorists who appear to be slowing to make a left hand turn.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Danny Feldman

Quick Right Hand Turns in Front of Cyclists are Dangerous

Danny Feldman — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 15:04:00 GMT

This is another in a continuing series of blogs of annoying/dangerous motorist behaviors.

Overtaking a cyclist and then making a quick right hand turn in front of the cyclist, sometimes referred to as a "right-hook," is an annoying and dangerous motorist behavior. However, unlike the situation with "buzzing" it is not always an act intended to harass the cyclist.

Many times motorists do not appreciate how fast a cyclist is traveling. For instance, a cyclist, or group of cyclists, traveling at 25 mph are moving at the rate 36.67 feet/second. This is a very doable speed for a group of seasoned cyclists and for example, on Old Leeds Road, this may be in the typical range. Accordingly if a vehicle 200 yards away from an intersection and 100 yards behind the cyclists wants to make a right turn in front of the cyclists, then that vehicle is going to have to average better than 50 mph in order to even get even with the cyclists before the turn. What often happens is as the driver approaches the intersection and realizes that he/she will not be able to turn in front of the cyclists, the driver "floors it" in order to get around the cyclists. Of course, in order to make the right hand turn on four wheels, the driver has to brake very hard and turn right directly in front of the just passed oncoming cyclists. Obviously, the potential for the cyclist to strike the vehicle and be launched over it, often leading to a broken collarbone or dislocated shoulder is great. The wreck is caused by both the motorist's failure to appreciate just how fast the cyclists are moving and the motorist's decision to try and get around the cyclists, no matter what.

As a cyclist, when you see an intersection on your right coming up, its always a good idea to notice if there is any car fast approaching behind you, and of course, when you hear the engine revving so that the car can get around you, you best be ready to brake, or take other evasive action just in case the motorist makes the quick right turn in front of you.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Danny Feldman