Alabama Personal Injury Blog - Bicyclist

Its no "accident" when you run over bicyclists after drinking all night

Danny Feldman — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:08:38 GMT

Three cyclists recently were hit and injured in Baldwin County by a 28 year old driver who apparently had been out drinking all night and had yet to go to bed. See article at http://blog.al.com/live/2009/08/two_baldwin_county_cyclists_hi.html. Interestingly, this 28 year old "child" still lived at home with his parents. After the incident, the father of the 28 year old driver issued a statement advising that thoughts and prayers went out to the bicyclists and their families for this terrible "accident." According to the article, the 28 year old driver had been out drinking all night and refused a breath test. A blood test was taken and although results have not yet been released, I believe that there is a very good chance that these tests will show that this young man was drunk when the wreck occurred at 8:30 in the morning.

Staying out all night drinking, then driving around drunk, losing control of your vehicle and then running over cyclists is no "accident." Rather, had one of the cyclists died, which easily could have happened, the case is one of vehicular homicide. Calling something an "accident" when it really is a deliberate action taken without regard for the health and well-being of the general public, cyclists included, really is an attempt to minimize the seriousness of the wrongdoing involved. While it may be true that this motorist did not mean to run over these cyclists, the fact of the matter is he did mean to get drunk; he did chose to stay up all night; after drinking and staying up all night, he did decide to drive his car - consequences be damned.

This case hits close to home in Baldwin County where another young man on two separate occassions separated by only a couple of years, got drunk and killed cyclists. Tragic, but hardly an "accident," especially the second time.

Here in Birmingham, I handled a case 5 years ago where a man, only a few years younger than the one here at issue, and like the one here, still living at home with his parents, went out, got drunk and ran over 3 cyclists on Lakeshore Drive. He fled the scene, dragging one of the cyclist's bikes under his car for more than a mile. His mother made him turn himself in and when he took a blood test a couple of hours later, we were able to determine through expert testimony from a toxicologist, that his blood alcohol level at 7:30 am on a Sunday morning was about twice the legal limit. Discovery revealed that this young man had had a serious of incidents, including arrests and convictions for public drunk, disturbing the peace, DUI's etc. However, each time, his penalty was quite minor, maybe attendance at an alcohol abuse class. Even in the incident described above, he spent only one night in jail because, fortunately, the cyclists involved did not die and they decided not to press assault charges.

I wonder about Mr. Maple, the 28 year old in Mobile. I would be very surprised, indeed, stunned, if he did not have a number of arrests and/or convictions, for DUI and the like. The article states that he was able to leave by posting a $1,000 bail. Has he learned a lesson? Will he quit going out and getting drunk and threatening not only himself, but every other motorist, cyclist or pedestrian that gets in his way? I bet not - and that's too bad for all of us.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Danny Feldman

Cyclists should not ride against traffic

Danny Feldman — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:28:00 GMT

This is the last of a 6-part series regarding annoying or dangerous cycling behaviors.

Many people, almost without exception, non-cyclists, wonder why cyclists do not ride against (or into) oncoming traffic - like most runners (correctly) run. Simply stated - it is unsafe.

First, cyclists are traffic. With very limited exceptions, cyclists have the same rights and responsibilities of motorists. Bicyclists riding against the traffic are not in the place where motorists expect them to be. Because riding against traffic places a cyclist in an area where motorists do not know to look, the obvious consequence is that the motorist will not expect the cyclist to be where it is, thus leading to wrecks. For example a car making a right hand turn may only look to the left, given that is the only direction that cars are expected to come. A bicycle headed into traffic thus would plow right into a car making a right hand turn.

Secondly, bicycles move fast relatively speaking - much. much faster than joggers, and in some parts of the roadway, may even push toward the speed limit. Accordingly, the distance between a car and an oncoming bicycle is reduced very quickly. For example a car travelling 40 mph approaching a bicyclist traveling 20 mph will be getting closer at the rate of 88 feet a second. In just a little over 3 second a distance off 100 yards (the length of a football field) will be gone.

Third, unlike runners, who are taught to run against traffic - cyclists cannot bail out off the road, as can runners.

Once someone gives the matter a little thought, it is absolutely clear why cyclists should not ride against traffic.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Danny Feldman

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

Six Dangerous or Annoying Riding Behaviors of Cyclists

Danny Feldman — Fri, 15 May 2009 14:47:33 GMT

I recently have completed a six part series on annoying and dangerous motorist behaviors and as promised, I now will start a six part series on the riding behaviors of cyclists that are annoying to motorists and dangerous to motorists and often even more so to cyclists. This is a non-exhaustive list, and with the exception of only two of the listed behaviors (#2 and #6) I regret to say that, at one time or another, I have been guilty of all the other listed behaviors.

Below are the six behaviors, each of which will be the focus of a separate blog:

1. Failing to stop at red lights or stop signs - the one thing that probably makes motorists the maddest;

2. Riding without a helmet - although not necessarily dangerous to motorists, it is so dangerous to cyclists that it had to make the list;

3.Riding without adequate lights or reflective devices - obviously this is applicable in early morning hours before the sun rises or dusk or later as the sun sets - just not a good idea for anyone not to be seen by drivers;

4.Riding more than two abreast or otherwise not getting in single file to allow cars to pass - probably the second most common complaint of motorists although, as will be discussed in more detail in the blog, it is not always safe for the cyclist to move as far to the right as "possible;"

5. Talking on the cell phone when riding - enough said; and

6. Riding against the traffic - many people, generally non-cyclists, think riding against the traffic is a good idea. It is not. It is unlawful and unsafe.

I will go into more detail regarding each of these cycling behaviors over the next couple of weeks.

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