This supposed "bike accident" happened when a driver violated the bicyclist's right of way by turning into her path. The driver may not have intended to kill anyone, but simply classifying this collision as an "accident" prematurely absolves the driver of any responsibility for killing a person through negligence.
You've also prematurely absolved the bicyclist of any responsibility for the collision.
"It's a very blind curve and bicycles come flying around that corner, and right before the corner there's a turn on Elk Tree Road and sometimes things happen too fast," Lazarus said. "People are driving 45 miles per hour on the road and there's no place for a bicycle to go."
While I agree with you that we shouldn't prematurely absolve anyone of responsibility, the speed limit on that road is 40mph. It's possible that Covey reached this speed or above heading downhill, but very unlikely that she was traveling more than, say, 45mph.
If a driver had turned in front of a car going 45, causing a collision, no one would talk about the speeding car "flying around the corner." It would be a failure to yield to oncoming traffic, period.
AFAIK the yellow signs are "advice" rather than law. I make a point of at least doubling the "advice", visibility and governing speed limit permitting.
Why would you make a point of doubling the advised limit? I can't imagine your stopping ability is actually twice as good as average.
In other words, for no reason other than hubris/machismo, you're choosing to significantly increase your likelihood of wrecking your car (and/or others' vehicles) and possibly killing or maiming yourself (and/or others).
It just takes a bit of black ice, loose gravel, spilled oil, confusing shadows, distractions in the car (like spilled coffee) or outside of the car (like a bird or rock hitting your windshield, or a deer leaping into the side of your car -- to use examples that have happened to me personally), another distracted driver who has veered into your lane, and boom, you're done. They're done. Maybe the 12-year-old riding a bike on the side is done.
Sorry, this is an overreaction to a throwaway comment, but bad drivers who think they're good drivers are friggin' everywhere, and the resultant loss of life and limb is staggering.
The speed limit is exactly that, a limit. From the CA driver's handbook: "California has a "Basic Speed Law." This law means that you may never drive faster than is safe for current conditions. For example, if you are driving 45 mph in a 55 mph speed zone during a dense fog, you could be cited for driving "too fast for conditions."
Limits are based on ideal conditions. This includes the vehicles stopping ability. If a bike is incapable of braking as quickly as a car then the rider should not be travelling at the posted limit.
Definitely not. However, the woman in the audio clip points out that there is both a blindspot and the sun makes it doubly difficult to see people around that corner.
We have no context of the situation on which to assign blame. I trust the police and witnesses involved will help sort things out. Whether or not we assign blame on Hacker News seems somewhat irrelevant.
How do you know the cyclist wasn't violating the speed limit for that blind turn? Use Street View to go north of the accident and simulate traveling around the turn that the cyclist would have been going, and imagine the cyclist was doing 35mph. There's very little advance notice if a car is already turning. At 35mph, a bicyclist would probably need at least 100ft to stop, if you've got your wits about you, you might be able to slow down enough to evade or run yourself off into a ditch on the side.
This just looks like a dangerous intersection to drive on, let alone bike on.
It's pretty clear that "accident" in this context refers simply to a lack of intention. I don't think anyone is calling for the absolution of the driver's responsibility.
This is apparently not an isolated incident, as other cyclists and motorcycles have had accidents on this street, due to its winding path and poor visibility.
Bicyclists can do ~35mph on that stretch, which is about 50 feet per second. She was around the bend for at least 3 seconds before she impacted the van, plenty of time for the van to see her and for her to slow down or turn off if the van had turned before she came around the bend.
More likely than not, she was already around the bend, nearly to the intersection when the driver turned. It's quite shady in that section, so it's possible the driver lost her in the shadows, or just wasn't paying close enough attention.
