Bicyclist's head run over by truck

He was wearing a Giro. Can to tell which model from the photo?

See it via http://Muvy.org

On 2007-05-14, Useful Info wrote:
He was wearing a Giro. Can to tell which model from the photo?

See it via http://Muvy.org

Good for him, but maybe next time he'll ride *in the damned street* instead
of a sidepath, and will avoid such a nasty right-turn hook. Yeesh.


--

__o Kristian Zoerhoff
_'\(,_
(_)/ (_)

On May 14, 6:07 am, Kristian M Zoerhoff
wrote:
On 2007-05-14, Useful Info wrote:

He was wearing a Giro. Can to tell which model from the photo?

See it viahttp://Muvy.org

Good for him, but maybe next time he'll ride *in the damned street* instead
of a sidepath, and will avoid such a nasty right-turn hook. Yeesh.

--

__o Kristian Zoerhoff
_'\(,_
(_)/ (_)

I agree with Kristian - this is exactly the sort of danger of riding
on "bike paths" (usually sidewalks) that are alongside busy streets.
Sidewalk ("bike path") crossings of intersections are designed for
pedestrian speeds, not bike speeds. The motorist is probably attuned
to pedestrian speed crossings.... he looks to make the right turn,
sees nothing in the general vicinity and turns. The cyclist, going
10X the speed of a pedestrian enters the intersection. If the cyclist
is traveling in the same direction as the driver, the motorist passes
the cyclist before the intersection. When the motorist gets to the
intersection, he is concentrating on making a safe turn in traffic.
The cyclist (again going very much faster than any pedestrian) comes
out of nowhere into the intersection and really does blind side the
driver. I think the cyclist was irresponsible for putting himself
and the motorist in this position.

I'm not saying the motorist is not at fault, but it is a major design
flaw, a set up for accidents. It has happened to me (as a motorist),
and I am acutely attuned to cyclists being one myself. I haven't hit
someone, but it could happen even in spite of being careful. As a
cyclist, if I'm riding a "bike path" (sidewalk), I feel it's my
responsibility to avoid this. Sure the motorist should, but we have
to realize it is just a set up for problems and do what we can to
avoid them.

Worse yet, it could have totally been the cyclist's fault. He says
there was a white walk sign, but it is VERY COMMON for cyclists on
"bike paths" (again, I call them sidewalks) to follow the *street
signals* not the *pedestrian signals*. Pedestrian signals do NOT
follow traffic signals. It is very common to have a green light
(allowing right turn w/o yield) and the pedestrian signal is "don't
walk". In fact, this is another flaw in the "bike path" (sidewalk)
mentality: the walk signal OFTEN doesn't light unless the pedestrian
pushes the button. And a cyclist often doesn't stop to push the
button.

Isn't it telling that the signals on the "bike path" are walk/don't
walk? Doesn't this indicate the path is designed for pedestrians, not
cyclists?

I've almost hit several cyclists who are riding fast on a "bike
path" (sidewalk) who blow through DON'T WALK signals becuase the
traffic light is green. In the time I'm waiting to make a safe
(especially left) turn, the cyclist can literally come out of nowhere
and if they blow through the don't walk sign when I'm committed to
making the turn, It's a BIG problem. Do I procede and hit the
cyclist? Of course not - but the alternative is to stop and get hit
myself from on coming traffic.

Cyclists often dont' realize (a) they need to follow the pedestrian
signals if they're on the "bike path" (sidewalk) and (b) if they blow
through a don't walk sign, they are at grave danger of being hit by
cars turning off the parallel road. If they're traveling in the same
direction as the motorist, they are apporaching from the motorist's
blind spot, therefore compounding the danger.

I hope there's solid proof of the cyclist having a "Walk" signal
before the motorist is crucified.

Don't ride on sidewalks!

Useful Info wrote:

He was wearing a Giro. Can to tell which model from the photo?

See it via http://Muvy.org

I smell a rat.

I don't weigh as much as a truck, but I can smash a foam hat flat by
stepping on it. From the looks of that helmet, it does not appear to
have any meaningful structural integrity left, so it makes me wonder
how it could have protected that guy if a truck actually ran over his
head, as the article suggests.

To me it looks like the truck ran over the hat, but not the head. Do
you have a hypothesis for how the hat could have been flattened
without damage to his head, if his head was in it at the time?

More magical thinking! That will save us!

Chalo

Chalo wrote:
I smell a rat.

I don't weigh as much as a truck, but I can smash a foam hat flat by
stepping on it. From the looks of that helmet, it does not appear to
have any meaningful structural integrity left, so it makes me wonder
how it could have protected that guy if a truck actually ran over his
head, as the article suggests.

To me it looks like the truck ran over the hat, but not the head. Do
you have a hypothesis for how the hat could have been flattened
without damage to his head, if his head was in it at the time?

I agree. It looks like it ran over the back pointy portion and may have
kind of squeezed his head away from the tire.

Wayne

On May 15, 11:27 am, Wayne Pein wrote:

I agree. It looks like it ran over the back pointy portion and may have
kind of squeezed his head away from the tire.

Well... that's how automated shrimp peelers work. They compress the
carapace and the body slides out. So perhaps the helmet collapsed
while pushing his head away from the tire.

Will wrote:
On May 15, 11:27 am, Wayne Pein wrote:

I agree. It looks like it ran over the back pointy portion and may
have kind of squeezed his head away from the tire.

Well... that's how automated shrimp peelers work. They compress the
carapace and the body slides out. So perhaps the helmet collapsed
while pushing his head away from the tire.

Quite possible. So without the lid the rubber would have grabbed the
hair/skull and... yech.

However it happened, assuming it really did (and it's seeming more and more
likely that it did), he was extremely fortunate. If he hadn't been wearing
a lid, he'd almost defintely be either dead or vegetative. (Sorry, AHZs,
that's how it's looking.)

On Mon, 14 May 2007 11:17:03 -0700, Camilo wrote:
I agree with Kristian - this is exactly the sort of danger of riding
on "bike paths" (usually sidewalks) that are alongside busy streets.
Sidewalk ("bike path") crossings of intersections are designed for
pedestrian speeds, not bike speeds. The motorist is probably attuned
to pedestrian speed crossings.... he looks to make the right turn,

For what it may or may not be worth... if this is the street I remember
it being (lived in the neighborhood 17 years ago) this is NOT a sidewalk
crossing. There's a separate bike path, a reclaimed railroad bed. This
arrangement is quite common in Madison.

Visibility is good in the direction the truck was going. There shouldn't
have been any reason for him not to be able to see the cyclist.

Worse yet, it could have totally been the cyclist's fault. He says
there was a white walk sign, but it is VERY COMMON for cyclists on
"bike paths" (again, I call them sidewalks) to follow the *street
signals* not the *pedestrian signals*. Pedestrian signals do NOT
follow traffic signals. It is very common to have a green light
(allowing right turn w/o yield) and the pedestrian signal is "don't
walk". In fact, this is another flaw in the "bike path" (sidewalk)
mentality: the walk signal OFTEN doesn't light unless the pedestrian
pushes the button. And a cyclist often doesn't stop to push the
button.

Note that the article says both the street signal and the pedestrian
signal were "go" in his direction. If I recall properly there are
separate signals for the street and for the path at this location. I'm
almost certain there's no "WALK" button on the path.

Bill Sornson wrote:

Will wrote:

Wayne Pein wrote:


I agree. It looks like it ran over the back pointy portion and may
have kind of squeezed his head away from the tire.

That does seem like a sort of plausible explanation for the results we
can see. It couldn't have "squeezed" that far if the chinstrap had
been done up according to spec.

Well... that's how automated shrimp peelers work. They compress the
carapace and the body slides out. So perhaps the helmet collapsed
while pushing his head away from the tire.

Quite possible. So without the lid the rubber would have grabbed the
hair/skull and... yech.

Maybe. And maybe it would just have run over just his hair, and the
yech would have been in his pants. Or maybe the extra dimension the
foam hat added to his head was the only thing the tire got purchase
on, and otherwise it would have missed him entirely. Or maybe the
comparative slipperiness of the foam hat's shell was what allowed his
head to skitter far enough to be in harm's way in the first place.
It's all pretty idle speculation from here.

What we do know is that the central assertion of the article, "dude a
truck ran over this dude's head and his helmet totally protected him",
is false. If the truck had gone over his head, no foam hat in the
world, no matter how magical, would have saved him from injury. And
the implication that it did causes more harm than good.

However it happened, assuming it really did (and it's seeming more and more
likely that it did), he was extremely fortunate.

Agreed.

If he hadn't been wearing
a lid, he'd almost defintely be either dead or vegetative. (Sorry, AHZs,
that's how it's looking.)

Pretty iffy evidence you've got there for that claim. I suppose if
the guy had been wearing huge raver pants, and he tripped on them and
busted ass in the street and a truck ran over his pants, you'd be
claiming that the pants saved him from certain death or amputation.

I say perhaps, and perhaps not. But to me it's self-evident that the
moment his helmet was mashed flat, his head wasn't in it.

Chalo

Bill Sornson wrote:


However it happened, assuming it really did (and it's seeming more and more
likely that it did), he was extremely fortunate. If he hadn't been wearing
a lid, he'd almost defintely be either dead or vegetative. (Sorry, AHZs,
that's how it's looking.)



How do you know that a cycling/baseball cap wouldn't also have acted to
squeeze his head away from the tire?

Wayne