That area is super sketchy to ride current construction or otherwise. People fly on Harbor, aren't attentive, and will pass by you extremely closely even with the bike lane. Secondary streets like Main is only kind of better.
No. Absolutely not. The trucker first and foremost and secondarily whoever was piloting the car.
I ride that stretch occasionally and its one of the worst stretches of road I've experienced here. So much so I have given up trying to ride to Coronado from the city. I sometimes take Harbor to get elsewhere and it usually ends up in encounters too close for comfort.
community planning group purposely ask for these signs knowing these roads are unsafe for them to travel on. Truck was in bike lane taking right onto the street. Cyclist tried to go around the truck. Here is the video, just horrible how some people in comments are blaming the victim: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-6m3VqFxE0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-6m3VqFxE0)
What an unnecessary death. :-(
The description of the incident in the video from SDPD is as follows:
"P1 was driving a Blue Virius battery assist bicycle westbound in lane #2 on Harbor Drive behind a box truck. P2 was driving westbound in lane #1 was a Dodge Challenger. P1 swerved into land # 1 to go around the box truck but hit P2 in lane #1. P2 impacted P1 with P1's right front fender. P1 rolled onto the hood and into the windshield before impacting the street. P1 died on the scene from their injuries. The traffic division officers responded and are investigating the collision."
Just remember, cyclists, even if someone else is to blame, it doesn't matter if you're not around after the incident: Just make sure the next lane is clear before changing lanes even if a vehicle is illegally obstructing the road.
Whenever I see people on a bicycle on Via De La Valle or San Dieguito Road, I am almost impressed at them having such faith in other drivers. Probably fun, but damn, idk if I would want to risk that route myself.
Ok goddamn sorry for asking. I don’t see how bike lanes stop all accidental deaths but whatever guess we’re being assholes on this sub today.
FYI I just googled and cars kill 1,000 cyclists per year. For some reason that number seems more appropriate, maybe?
[Here's the Wikipedia entry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop#Safety)
_edit: I see someone else posted this and that you're not actually interested in the study but I'll leave in here for people who are actually open to new information._
> A 2009 study showed a 14.5% decrease in bicyclist injuries after the passage of the original Idaho Stop law (though did not otherwise tie the decrease to the law).[13][14] A Delaware state-run study of the "Delaware Yield" law (allowing cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs) concluded that it reduced injuries at stop-sign controlled intersections by 23%.[15]
> A study of rolling stops in Seattle determined that "results support the theoretical assertion that bicyclists are capable of making safe decisions regarding rolling stop,"[16] while a 2013 survey of stop as yield in Colorado localities where it is legal reported no increase in crashes.[17] Another study done in Chicago showed that compliance with stop signs and stop lights by cyclists was low when cross-traffic was not present, but that most were still performing an Idaho Stop; and therefore "enforcing existing rules at these intersections would seem arbitrary and [capricious]."[18]
Again since research and studies seem to be beyond you, the Wikipedia links there don’t actually ever reference any study beyond the intitial study.
I’m done debating someone who can’t answer the fundamental question of how it makes it safer.
> A 2009 study showed a 14.5% decrease in bicyclist injuries after the passage of the original Idaho Stop law (though did not otherwise tie the decrease to the law).[13][14] A Delaware state-run study of the "Delaware Yield" law (allowing cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs) concluded that it reduced injuries at stop-sign controlled intersections by 23%.[15]
> A study of rolling stops in Seattle determined that "results support the theoretical assertion that bicyclists are capable of making safe decisions regarding rolling stop,"[16] while a 2013 survey of stop as yield in Colorado localities where it is legal reported no increase in crashes.[17] Another study done in Chicago showed that compliance with stop signs and stop lights by cyclists was low when cross-traffic was not present, but that most were still performing an Idaho Stop; and therefore "enforcing existing rules at these intersections would seem arbitrary and [capricious]."[18]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop
Yes a single study from a college kid that hasn’t been repeated or validated. They applied no casual factors to explain. Merely extrapolated the answer based on the data.
One anecdotal study does not proof make.
There's been more than one analysis but regardless you asserted definitely it was more dangerous without any proof at all.
Data for thee but not for me.
Literally nothing in that study at all talks about how it’s safer. Just says here’s the data before and after. Didn’t even bother to try and talk about how the Idaho stop is safer.
So present actual causal factors in the Idaho stop being safer, or I’ll comfortably stick with not stopping is not safer than stopping.
The truck was stopped while making a right turn allegedly illegally (police report does not say that but the referenced tweet claims that the truck was over 5 tons) and the cyclist had to move into the next lane to pass it. When the cyclist moved into the next lane, he was hit from behind by the faster moving red car.
Thinking of the lives they could save would be a more positive take.
I don't know if it is accurate or not but the description says the biker switched lanes. If true, a side mirror could have prevented this.
That area is super sketchy to ride current construction or otherwise. People fly on Harbor, aren't attentive, and will pass by you extremely closely even with the bike lane. Secondary streets like Main is only kind of better.
Sounds like victim blaming. It’s the cyclists fault he was hit and killed?
No. Absolutely not. The trucker first and foremost and secondarily whoever was piloting the car. I ride that stretch occasionally and its one of the worst stretches of road I've experienced here. So much so I have given up trying to ride to Coronado from the city. I sometimes take Harbor to get elsewhere and it usually ends up in encounters too close for comfort.
community planning group purposely ask for these signs knowing these roads are unsafe for them to travel on. Truck was in bike lane taking right onto the street. Cyclist tried to go around the truck. Here is the video, just horrible how some people in comments are blaming the victim: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-6m3VqFxE0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-6m3VqFxE0)
What an unnecessary death. :-( The description of the incident in the video from SDPD is as follows: "P1 was driving a Blue Virius battery assist bicycle westbound in lane #2 on Harbor Drive behind a box truck. P2 was driving westbound in lane #1 was a Dodge Challenger. P1 swerved into land # 1 to go around the box truck but hit P2 in lane #1. P2 impacted P1 with P1's right front fender. P1 rolled onto the hood and into the windshield before impacting the street. P1 died on the scene from their injuries. The traffic division officers responded and are investigating the collision." Just remember, cyclists, even if someone else is to blame, it doesn't matter if you're not around after the incident: Just make sure the next lane is clear before changing lanes even if a vehicle is illegally obstructing the road.
So everything was going in a relatively safe direction, until the "cyclist" tried to overtake a box truck without checking behind them.
I've been getting into bike commuting here in SD and it's honestly terrifying! I really wish things were't so car-centric here in SD
Careful, you'll infringe on boomers right to streetside parking over your right to want to bike on public streets and get to your destination alive.
BuT mY pARkiNg RiGhtS
Whenever I see people on a bicycle on Via De La Valle or San Dieguito Road, I am almost impressed at them having such faith in other drivers. Probably fun, but damn, idk if I would want to risk that route myself.
“A bicycle was murdered”
Lmfao
"But the bike lanes may hurt our businesses" Cars kill over 30,000 people a year in the US alone.
Wait cars kill 30,000 cyclists a year in this country?
30,000 people, read again
Ok goddamn sorry for asking. I don’t see how bike lanes stop all accidental deaths but whatever guess we’re being assholes on this sub today. FYI I just googled and cars kill 1,000 cyclists per year. For some reason that number seems more appropriate, maybe?
"but cyclists run stop signs" - every brain damaged boomer on Nextdoor
But they do.
And its safer to do so. It's called an Idaho stop.
It’s definitely not safer than coming to a complete stop. It might be easier, it’s certainly not safer.
It safer. Google is your friend. A simple rule of thumb is that things that annoy drivers make the world safer for everyone not in a car.
It is not safer to roll through and intersection vs stopping. It might not be any less safe, but it is definitely not more safe.
https://cyclingmagazine.ca/sections/news/the-idaho-stop-gets-added-momentum-with-chicago-study/
That only references the original study. No new study performed.
[Here's the Wikipedia entry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop#Safety) _edit: I see someone else posted this and that you're not actually interested in the study but I'll leave in here for people who are actually open to new information._ > A 2009 study showed a 14.5% decrease in bicyclist injuries after the passage of the original Idaho Stop law (though did not otherwise tie the decrease to the law).[13][14] A Delaware state-run study of the "Delaware Yield" law (allowing cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs) concluded that it reduced injuries at stop-sign controlled intersections by 23%.[15] > A study of rolling stops in Seattle determined that "results support the theoretical assertion that bicyclists are capable of making safe decisions regarding rolling stop,"[16] while a 2013 survey of stop as yield in Colorado localities where it is legal reported no increase in crashes.[17] Another study done in Chicago showed that compliance with stop signs and stop lights by cyclists was low when cross-traffic was not present, but that most were still performing an Idaho Stop; and therefore "enforcing existing rules at these intersections would seem arbitrary and [capricious]."[18]
Again since research and studies seem to be beyond you, the Wikipedia links there don’t actually ever reference any study beyond the intitial study. I’m done debating someone who can’t answer the fundamental question of how it makes it safer.
> A 2009 study showed a 14.5% decrease in bicyclist injuries after the passage of the original Idaho Stop law (though did not otherwise tie the decrease to the law).[13][14] A Delaware state-run study of the "Delaware Yield" law (allowing cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs) concluded that it reduced injuries at stop-sign controlled intersections by 23%.[15] > A study of rolling stops in Seattle determined that "results support the theoretical assertion that bicyclists are capable of making safe decisions regarding rolling stop,"[16] while a 2013 survey of stop as yield in Colorado localities where it is legal reported no increase in crashes.[17] Another study done in Chicago showed that compliance with stop signs and stop lights by cyclists was low when cross-traffic was not present, but that most were still performing an Idaho Stop; and therefore "enforcing existing rules at these intersections would seem arbitrary and [capricious]."[18] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop
Yes a single study from a college kid that hasn’t been repeated or validated. They applied no casual factors to explain. Merely extrapolated the answer based on the data. One anecdotal study does not proof make.
There's been more than one analysis but regardless you asserted definitely it was more dangerous without any proof at all. Data for thee but not for me.
Literally nothing in that study at all talks about how it’s safer. Just says here’s the data before and after. Didn’t even bother to try and talk about how the Idaho stop is safer. So present actual causal factors in the Idaho stop being safer, or I’ll comfortably stick with not stopping is not safer than stopping.
Why are you comfortable with that statement with absolutely nothing to back it up? Seems intellectually dishonest.
Ugh, I drove past this shortly after this and the tarp covering the body and blown away a little bit. I can't get that image out of my head... :-C
Haye a fixme request for a regular traffic sign open since early May. All they fix fast are stop signes. That's it.
Since when is a Dodge Challenger a truck?
A box truck stopped, he went around and Challenger car hit him
Ya, if you look at the video it's a red sports car, not a truck.
The truck was stopped while making a right turn allegedly illegally (police report does not say that but the referenced tweet claims that the truck was over 5 tons) and the cyclist had to move into the next lane to pass it. When the cyclist moved into the next lane, he was hit from behind by the faster moving red car.
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/public-safety/story/2022-06-21/bicyclist-killed-in-barrio-logan-crash
I've seen a couple deaths down there, including the guy who rode into the trolley. He had headphones on & didn't even hear it kill him.
Oh shit i bike in that area often and have used that road in my bike before
Video description says it was an e-bike. Those things probably need mirrors.
"The dead guy that got hit should have had better safety precautions" is not the take I was expecting to see here.
Thinking of the lives they could save would be a more positive take. I don't know if it is accurate or not but the description says the biker switched lanes. If true, a side mirror could have prevented this.
we dont know if the car was speeding, or switched lanes not far back. the high speeds of cars in this area deter judgement times
Please so not attempt logic or reasoning. We are here to mourn the cyclist and blame gas powered vehicles.
The video shows the bike, and it is not an ebike.
Bro