And here's a screenshot - you can see her speed jump to 30mph just at the blind corner before Elk Tree road, and she accelerates past Elk Tree to 36mph:
If she was going 30+ on a downhill (-6.5% grade), it's possible the car was already turning when she hit the corner and she was unable to decelerate, maybe the pavement was wet. But it is about 300ft, so I would expect her to be able to brake in time.
The problem with this theory is that the speed limit on that road is 40. If she was traveling well under the speed limit but did not have time to stop for a turning car, then it seems to me that either a) the intersection is designed such that a vehicle traveling the speed limit will be unable to stop before colliding with a turning vehicle, or b) the driver turned after the bicyclist had turned the corner. Or, of course, a combination of the two--it may well be that the intersection is fairly dangerous for drivers as well (and some commenters have talked about previous accidents at the same intersection).
It seems entirely possible to me that the van driver was actually taking the corner "too slow" (though I'd be taking it slow too based on blindness of the turn if I wasn't used to that area) resulting in a situation where there was an obstacle in the bicyclist's path that was difficult to avoid at the speed that she was travelling.
And yes, this would also mean that turn would be dangerous for other cars as well in this situation, but modern cars actually have a much easier time of safely breaking while curving and going downhill than a person on a bicycle would (way easier to crash the bike or slide it out) and the car would be further out to the left of the lane than a bike would.
Of course, this is all speculation, and this is a horrible tragedy no matter how it happened, but I think some people are calling for the van driver's head way too early on this. And I say that as someone who does quite a lot of biking both mountain biking and on the roads.
I agree pretty much entirely. It's entirely possible that no one was at fault, or even that the bicyclist was, say, looking down and didn't notice the van until too late. And please don't think I'm "calling for the van driver's head." I have made so many mistakes while driving, riding a motorcycle, and bicycling that could easily have led to the death of me or other people if the conditions lined up right. Dappled sunlight through the trees, relatively high speeds for a bicycle, a sharp corner, and a tiny side-street are a really dangerous combination.
Yeah agreed. It is also possible the driver was at fault, I just think we don't have enough information to say what happened for sure.
Ultimately, I think most people would agree that regardless of where fault lies in this particular accident (which doesn't change the tragedy of it at all) this is a very dangerous intersection to have both bicyclists and drivers travelling at the current speed limit with such blind turns, curves and grade involved.
I kind of agree with you (see my edits), but it is harder to decelerate on a bike than in a car, especially going downhill - you run the risk of going over the handlebars.
Not really. While I'm sure you could grab the brakes hard enough to launch yourself over the bars, there is a LOT of braking power to be had before that point.
I ride close to 6000 miles/year, most road cycling, racing criteriums and road races. Going over the bars because I simply grabbed the front too hard isn't even the top-20 things I worry about.
I had something similar happen, while coming downhill a car popped out of no-where and instead of just breaking, i also turned sharply and flew over the handle bars, luckily on the good side! The way we react in a split second of panic is not the way expect we will usually react.
One question though, her IQ was 173? Einstein's was between 160-180.
How do people actually get to know their IQ? Are they so full of themselves that they go and get tested so they can know just how superior they are? Or is it something standard in some part of the world?
You can usually estimate based on other standardized tests for people who haven't taken (or publicly disclosed) an IQ test. It's possible that the 173 figure is based on her CPA exam results or SAT scores.
IQ is just another meaningless metric. I'm supposedly 183, but I'm still a moronic cracked-out buffoon who struggles to remember what he ate for lunch.
On a hill? I was going too fast down a hill on a road cycle. Had a car behind me, and a very slightly raised manhole was ahead.
I braked, and went flying hard over the handlebars. I am not sure if I was going over before the manhole or not, but the hill radically changed how the brakes worked for me.
I was not there when that happened to you and I might be wrong but I cannot imagine that happening under normal circumstances. I used to race and during many thousand kilometers on the road I encountered many risky situations (including a car appearing out of nowhere if front of me while I was going down the hill on multiple occasions) and I am afraid of many things while I am on a bike. But I have to say that going over handlebars because of braking is not one of them. If I could venture a guess I would say that something might be wrong with your bike - bad geometry (some cheap/old bikes are unstable), tyres not pressurized enough, really bad brakes (front one working, back one not working) - if I were you I would make sure that my bike is safe. By any chance did you have a heavy backpack on your back? Or maybe you just panicked and did something you really should not do... like braking really hard with only your front brake? Please check your bike anyway.
I can't be sure. It was a friend's bike, and I was used to mountain bikes, not racing bikes.
I may have been leaning forward, I may have jammed the wrong brake. The bike may have had any of the problems you list. That combined with the manhole + hill speed was probably what did it.
I now use the public bike system in Montreal, bixi. Very convenient, and they're built like tanks, so I feel confident it won't happen again.
It depends on your technique. If you have the technique down it isn't difficult to rapidly decelerate on hills. It's mainly just a matter of bracing yourself, keeping your centre of gravity back and modulating the brake.
If you're not prepared for it and slam the front brake on your weight will shift forwards and you'll have lift off.
Riding trails for so long I sometimes take for granted the instinctual awareness of center of gravity without which its impossible to become even an intermediate mountain biker. Getting your weight back makes all the difference going down hill.
The bigger problem on a road bike are the skinny tires and twitchy handling make it very easy to fishtail and topple over when braking at speed.
That's not my experience at all - cars stop a lot faster than both motorcyclists and certainly than plain cyclists (I cycle almost every day multiple times).
The thing is, in a car you can basically be unprepared, then mash the brakes when somethings wrong. It's possible that'll cause you to lose control, but in general an emergencey stop whether controlled or not will stop the vehicle very quickly without causing any direct injury.
By contrast, on a (motor)bike if you mash the brakes you'll slip or even tumble head over heels. You're not wearing a seatbelt; and furthermore your vehicle loses control a lot less gracefully.
If you're prepared, it's a different story since you can rearrange your center of mass, and get a good grip beforehand, but in an accident situation... a car stops much more quickly.
I'm going to show my lack of cycling knowledge here, but I really don't understand what you're saying. Why wouldn't one just use the rear break and set their body, like when one rides a bus and has to stand?
Well, the front brake has ~70% of the stopping power (both on bikes and cars), so while that will work (assuming you don't skid in the back), it won't be the fastest. You can get quite a bit of stopping out of your front brake without going over, you just have to be precise.
You also have to keep in mind road bikes don't have disc brakes so precision is not part of road bike brakes. Those are most likely caliper brakes, which actually lock up fairly quickly when pressure is applied to the brakes.
Modern road bike brakes are plenty powerful enough with adequate modulation.
The real limiting factor on road bikes is traction.
Disc brakes on road bikes might give a distinctive advantage, even with greater weight. Disc brake rims need not have a braking surface and thus can be lighter having less angular momentum.
You've got a lot more ability to shift your weight on a bike than on a car.
The only time my rear wheel has left the ground while braking is when I've tried to do it intentionally. And I've made plenty of hard stops in thousands of miles of riding.
In addition to the other explanations about braking power, the reason why you have little breaking power is that most of your weight is over the front tire -- especially going downhill. Locking the back wheel up, means it just skids across the road.
It might be easy to go into a skid and lose control. I guess it depends on road surface, and maybe it's not an issue for the pros, but I nearly got into an accident once trying to suddenly stop using rear brakes while going a bit downhill.
Every time I hear about someone crashing on their bike I try to learn how to reduce the chance of it happening. I train and race about 150 miles per week. Front lights like the Bontrager ION are great (for day or night) and I intend to use mine whenever I am not in a pack of riders. http://bontrager.com/products/accessories/lights.
My wife would kill me if I got hit by a car. Two days ago when I was on a bike ride (off road/cross), two somber police officers walked up to our house. My wife was sure it had to do with me getting hit by a car. They were only looking for someone who used to live near us years ago. It gave her a big scare.
A vehicle is much more visible than a bicycle. And Skyline has huge amounts of shadows from the trees, which would be exacerbated by riding on the right edge of the road where the shadows would be the deepest.
I'm pretty sure a bike in good condition is capable of stopping much faster than any motor vehicle, given the same speed and road. I could be mistaken, though.
When I've been going downhill with 35-40mph on a racing bike(rarely, I'm not particularly big cyclist), I've been unable to brake nearly as fast as I could on the same road with a car. Theoretically I could, but in practice the tires are very narrow and if braking anywhere near full power on non-perfect (dry, straight) conditions I could lose control while skidding, resulting in a very hazardous or deadly tumble.
I mainly ride mountain bikes (on roads), so that might be my disconnect. The tire-width thing makes sense. I also hadn't realized before this thread that road bikes don't usually use disc brakes. Seems odd.
Disc brakes aren't always used on road bikes, because their advantages aren't excercised much - you generally don't brake so much that heat is a problem; and wheel bending isn't a problem since unlike mountain bikes, you aren't expected to hit stuff that might bend a wheel and continue riding.
For wet conditions, disc brakes would have an advantage on road bikes for others, I'm not sure.
Possibly, but bikes are not generally equipped with ABS and traction control. In emergency scenarios, I would wager that cars have better collision-avoidance capabilities.
Meh - the segment record is 2:32 (for women) and she's riding 6:00+ (on that ride anyway) with 30+ seconds rest time. Her heart rate is below 150 and decreasing quickly.
I'd say that pretty decent evidence she wasn't trying to go fast.
She may well have been going at a high speed when the crash occurred, but to me it looks like her past behaviour shows she was careful.
Edit: OTOH, she only has ~900 km & ~50 hours cycling on Strava this year. Maybe she's not as experienced as the article had me think. But maybe she's just not a Strava junkie.
Edit 2: Ohhh.. this is near Old La Honda? I'm from Australia and even I know the Old La Honda climb (I am a cyclist though). If it is true someone turned in front of her then that person should have certainly known to look for bicycles.
BTW, I find it ironic that Strava gives cyclists better post-crash analysis than it is possible to get from a car.
As another commenter pointed out in another branch of these comments, even at the highest reasonably plausible speed for the cyclist there would have been 3 seconds between coming around the turn and hitting the van, so I don't think scenarios where the car was already turning when the bike came into view are likely.
One possibility I don't think I've seen mentioned yet is that the driver saw her but misjudged her speed. Based on the pictures people have linked to, it looks like the curve was far enough away that someone not familiar with the speed of bikes in that area might think that he's got plenty of time to make his turn and clear her lane long before she gets to him. It takes a lot longer than most people realize to judge the speed of an object that is heading almost straight toward you.
That said, it's a curve with a 40mph speed limit and a 35mph recommendation. If it's not safe to do 35mph around that curve, the road authorities should mark it accordingly.
If I die on a road I hope it's in a car. At least that way I won't have a whole hoard of internet forensic scientists desperately trying to figure out how it was all my fault.
Maybe this new modern cars will already upload telemetry data to the cloud, and maybe later there will be even a "AI forensic analysis" (which will probably end up assign fault to the one going faster because "think of the children")
I really dislike legalistic arguments about how cyclists should be riding. If there are road bikers in the hills, they are not going to ride their brakes all the way down a long downhill. I live where there are road bikers, longboarders, and horse riders on the roads. Car drivers have a responsibility to accommodate these people. There are plenty of ways to drive that are technically legal but completely dickish and that needlessly reduce the margin of safety for more vulnerable traffic.
As a cyclist, I disagree. Ultimately you're the one in charge of your own safety, and if you're going 30+ mph in conditions that have poor visibility (skyline has a lot of shadows), and not being defensive, you're at fault. "Share the road" goes in both directions.
How is 30+ mph on Skyline considered unsafe? Skyline is def. more dangerous as speed decreases -- only more so within the shadows (where the likelihood of being hit by a car driving in the same direction is much higher). You speak as though you've never known someone to be involved in an accident that was outside their power to control. Driving/riding defensively does not mean you will manage to avoid all hazards.
I've been involved in at least two accidents that were out of my control, one involving a car, and it was obvious in both cases that going slower saved my ass. I can see that below a certain speed you get more wobbly, but she seems to have been going in excess of 30 mph, at which point your own reaction time becomes the biggest issue.
I'm sorry, but no. Going over 30 mph does not make this her fault. And becoming "wobbly" at slower speeds is not the reason riding faster is preferable and safer on these stretches. It is because the biggest risk is the car closest to you, i.e. traveling in the same direction as you. The faster you are going, the smaller the delta in speeds, the less likely you are to be hit, and the less likely you are to die from the impact when you are hit. Driving at lower speeds because you are worried about the cars in the oncoming lane puts you at greater risk to the greater threat. And 30mph is not fast enough to negate your ability to react -- unless of course the situation does that for you in its entirety.
I'm not going to say definitively whose "fault" it was, but the car behind you is not the biggest risk. The biggest risks are almost always in front of you-- cars pulling out of intersections, opening doors, and cars making sudden right-hand turns into your lane without seeing you. This has been my experience and the statistics bear this out (http://bicyclesafe.com/).
If you're going to get hit from behind, it's probably because you swerved or a driver (going much faster than you) didn't see you and extra speed is not going to save you. Surviving the initial hit because you were riding fast doesn't mean much when your body slams into a guardrail or some other stationary object at 45 miles per hour.
I don't deny the risks you list, particularly when it comes to urban riding -- but on this particular stretch of road it is most certainly the cars behind you that pose the greatest risk. The cars at intersections are obviously a large risk as well, but it's offset by the fact you can see them, and thus react.
Makes sense, I missed the part where you'd specified that one stretch of road.
But still, although you can see cars at intersections, whether you see them in time to react is the important question and speed is a critical factor there.
Bicyclists are people, they make mistakes and they make unwise and dangerous decisions. The same is true of automobile drivers, who are also people. Though, of course, we've become inured to the mistakes and bad decisions of automobile drivers. Nevertheless, bad drivers are far more responsible for loss of life (their own and others) than bad cyclists.
If you look at the intersection of Elk Tree Road and Skyline on Street View you could see how this could happen. Turning left on Elk Tree (http://goo.gl/mBIpK3) someone coming around that turn at high speed heading south would have little stopping distance if there was a car in their lane. Not really sure what the speed limit on Skyline is there, and we don't know how she died, if she broadsided the car, or swerved into oncoming traffic behind the other car.
So there's a couple of scenarios:
1) driver sees cyclist and tries to turn left in front of her at too close of a distance, causing cyclist to collide with driver, or swerve into other traffic, or fall down
2) driver starts turn just as cyclist comes around corner, but for whatever reason, driver is taking too long (e.g. car that made left turn in front of it suddenly stops), cyclist does not have sufficient stopping distance, or may be exceeding speed limit. Cyclist evasive action leads to crash.
In many of these freak accidents, the knee jerk reaction is to blame the person who is more in power (the person with the car), but I wouldn't jump to conclusions. It might be a bad intersection that is just waiting for this kinds of accidents of bad timing.
She impacted the side of the van (from a different article I was reading) and aggressive riders apparently ride about 2-3mph under the 40mph speed limit in that section (from a bike forum I frequent).
All signs point to the driver not seeing her and turning into her path when she was well past the corner.
Wow, at ~40mph, on a bike, the stopping distance I think would be at least 80-100ft, that leaves precious little distance to react, if you come around the corner and your reaction time isn't immediate emergency breaking.
I think it also depends on the type of bike she was riding. A road bike with 23c tires and caliper breaks has a completely different stopping power than a mountain bike with 2.1 tires and disc brakes. In an emergency breaking the former would lock the rear wheel and/or lose the front of the bike (rider would fall to the side), whereas the latter would have much better control with reduced wheel locking. From my own experience, stopping a road bike at ~40mph in around 100ft is an optimistic estimate, specially if you are going downhill.
Also, IF you were going at that speed, you will have issues breaking while turning. Just like a motorcycle, you will be at a high risk of sliding, so to avoid this, you must straighten out to break hard.
I would recommend all bicyclists to look into motorcycle safety tips before riding on the road with cars.
Based on the Street View image, I would agree with you. Plenty of road left after the corner to brake even at those speeds. At a minimum, slamming on your brakes would have reduced the speed to one that would not be fatal.
I almost got broadsided last week while doing 42mph. I was able to slow down to a reasonable speed on a steeper road than the one pictured.
EDIT: at those speeds and on such a curve, she probably was riding in the hoods with her hands on the brakes. If she saw the van after the curve, she could have slowed down to a far slower speed. Then again, people die from just walking if you hit your head just right.
If you are turning, it is solely your responsibility to avoid obstructing legal oncoming traffic. If you hit someone doing the speed limit, you fucked up. That's it. There aren't ifs and buts about it. If it's hard to see, try harder. If you don't have much time, make the turn quickly when you commit to it. If the way isn't clear to proceed as soon as you turn, make the turn immediately. Whatever: it's your job to figure it out. If you can't figure it out, you don't get to drive.
I don't think that volume of data would be considered "big data". Semantics aside, municipalities regularly analyze these types of information in order to guide changes that make things safer.
No. Do not assume that just because the data is being collected, that it it is actually being analyzed, and definitely don't assume that even if it were analyzed, that the political will needed to effect reform will act.
On a small and not so happy scale, a certain city in North Dakota would only sand the roads in the winter if accidents had occurred (budget savings). They had year to year data. I would imagine most cities have the full accident data, but I bet getting it will be hellish since it might be a lawsuit problem ("you knew this was an issue...").
So sad to read this. It seems that every day I hear of a cyclist being killed (both in Australia where I live and elsewhere). As a cyclist myself, it saddens and scares me. I'm acutely aware of how exposed I am while cycling.
Thus, my personal philosophy when I'm out is this: Assume all the cars are out to kill you and act accordingly. It has served me well so far, though they are called "accidents" for a reason. Stay safe and have fun everyone!
I was just in Woodside last night talking to other cyclists about Old La Honda and other popular routes in the area and my coworker mentioned that she refuses to ride on Skyline because of the lack of a shoulder in many places and how fast people drive there even when they see cyclists and know there's a blind turn ahead.
As fitness becomes more socially connected and leaderboards get more attention for popular routes, I wonder if we'll expect to see more aggressive riding and more accidents like these?
I also know there are a few other areas people tell me to be careful, mostly the Berkeley Hills around Tilden (a cyclist died there in 2010 trying to beat a personal best on Strava) and on Hwy 1 on the way up to Mt Tam due to the large number of cars headed to Stinson Beach and Muir Woods.
I suspect very few in here have experience with that stretch of road, and fewer yet have that experience as a cyclist. I've ridden past that intersection probably close to 200 times (used to do repeats of OLH and coming down 84 is safer and more fun); as far as Skyline goes, it's a very safe stretch of road.
How does the fact that she previously traveled that stretch at a reasonable 36mph contribute to the discussion? If the point is to determine her guilt, it misses the mark. It does, however, come off as insensitive to the deceased.
In any case, I've seen a lot of analysis on braking times/distance vs speed. To this I will just add that I have a number of friends who have been taken out by vehicles suddenly turning in front of them -- it is one of the great dangers of riding. As to why that happens, it's typically either: the driver failed to account for the cyclist's speed, or failed to notice the cyclist.
And as for Skyline, there are a number of factors that make it a dangerous road to be on. One is the large number of car and motorcycle enthusiasts who drive its length at reckless speeds (doesn't seem a factor here, but motorist deaths are extremely common on Skyline). Another is the high contrast lighting conditions the trees paint on the road -- something I always worry about when I ride that road for any sizeable stretch.
To be honest, speed is your friend up there. The closer your speed matches the passing traffic, the safer you are. At least until someone turns into you, and then the only safe speed would be no speed at all.
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.
"A 50-year-old woman was riding her bicycle downhill on the northbound lane on Skyline when she collided with a minivan that was making a turn toward her lane."
Wow. Ok, here's some details on the accident based on news stories linked there.
First, background for people who don't know the area:
So this is in Woodside, the hills just west of Palo Alto. It's a nice area where you get more space and nature than living in Menlo Park/PA/MV, at the cost of having a fairly slow drive to get anywhere.
Skyline, the road she was on, is the main north-south way through that area. It's a one-lane-each-way, narrow-shoulder, trees-on-all-sides (leading to weird lighting at most hours) road that is fairly straight for that area, but still has some curves. I think the speed limit is 40mph.
The stretch of Skyline she was on is a very popular bike route. Some people will bike a lot of Skyline, but that ~one mile stretch is especially popular. Old La Honda Rd is a narrow, windy road that is one of the most famous cycling climbs in the area; it's got good shade and is a very steady 7% grade for the whole 3.5 miles. It's intense. Go out on a weekend and you will run into other cyclists, usually many others.
When you get to the top and want to loop back towards Palo Alto/etc, you basically have two options. One is to just go back down, but descending a road that steep and windy, especially given that there's basically always a cliff on one side, is pretty frightening. So I always take the other option, which is to take Skyline down to highway 84, the same direction and stretch of road she was doing.
That always feels like the safe part of the descent to me--it's mostly straight, people drive slightly slower than on 84, and it's not as steep of a descent as 84. 84 is frightening because there still isn't a shoulder, there's some really steep sections, there's some tight switchbacks, and people drive 50 mph.
But, sure enough, where her accident was on Skyline, there's a big blind curve, and not very far after it there's a tiny road (basically a driveway) off to the right. It sounds like as she came around that curve, a van that was headed the opposite direction on Skyline turned left in front of her into that small road, and she ended up hitting the van.
Damn, I saw this very scenario happen right in front of me yesterday in London rush hour traffic at the bottom of Balham hill on CS7. Middle-aged woman turns right in front of a guy doing about 35mph on his road bike. He fishtails, catapults, and slides on asphalt broadsiding the car at probably 15mph. I was on a mountain bike so I fortunately had greater stopping power. Still, there was only about a 1 second difference between him standing up and walking away (which he did) and full speed T-bone.
And this was on a London Cycle Superhighway during rush hour with dry pavement and perfect visibility. Up on Skyline Blvd it's way worse even when sunny because of the light shining through the redwoods.
This is a tragedy of course but I always wonder when journalists repeat things like this:
"Then she used her 173 IQ to pass California's high school-equivalency exam. At 19, she graduated from California State University at Fresno and took the CPA exam (scoring second best in the country that year). "
While it would be possible to verify that someone graduated from CSU at 19 (you call them) in general I would imagine that there is no easy way to verify someone's IQ or that they were 2nd best in the country at the CPA exam. I would imagine that journalists repeat things like this blindly and they become the truth about people when stated as if fact.
Of course journalists are generally going to repeat things that they are told but certain things are much harder to verify by any third party reading (as opposed to "graduated from Harvard" which could be disproved by anyone).
They actually do keep track of the top scores in the country on the CPA Exam. They've been doing it since 1924. Up until 2004 an "Elijah Watt Sells" award was given out to the top three scorers in the country. Nowadays they'll recognize a whole bunch of people in no particular order, but back in the day they used to give out a gold, silver, and bronze award for the top three scores. You can view a full list of winners here.
If you look at the winners from 1982 (exactly 31 years ago) someone named Joy Dianne Catalano from California had the second best score in the country. So looks like that claim is legitimate.
source: I ran a CPA Exam startup and know wayyy more than anyone ever should about the CPA exam
You're right that there's a lot of mythology about IQ, but presumably a person could show documentation of such a thing - e.g. a score on a "real" IQ test administered by a professional qualified in psychometrics[1].
Same thing with a CPA exam - presumably, the professional organization keeps records of scores for some years and it would probably be possible to pull their file. (Similar to how you can contact a university registrar's office to verify a person's claim to a degree.)
Keep in mind, I'm not saying that the journalist actually did their fact-checking to this level of persistence - just that they could.
For someone of that age (I am a little bit older), the test administered in childhood almost certainly would have been a Stanford-Binet L-M test, which was already obsolete by the time I took it. That test did have scores that went up to the low 180s, but those are not comparable to scores on current IQ tests. See
(a Wikipedia article with more current and more authoritative references than the other Wikipedia article already kindly shared here) for more details.
The American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) awards the top performers of the Uniform CPA Exam each year, and has since 1923 when the Elijah Watt Sells Award was established. The criteria for winning has changed over the years, but last year, for example, the top 39 of the 92,000 candidates received the award. It should be easy to verify this.
That's horrible. It hurts me to think about her family.
I think people should really give it a second thought when riding bikes along side automobiles. It doesn't seem like the best decision one could make. It's really scary.
I think drivers should be more aware and conscious that they are piloting a 2 ton or so vehicle. We all drive our vehicles next to everything from scooters to double tractor trailers. I have people turn in front of me in my car or motorcycle on a fairly regular basis because they are poorly trained and misjudge my speed.
The driver sounds like they were fairly young and inexperienced. I drive slowly around that area because there are so many cyclists and I take my time passing them. Their safety and peace of mind is worthy of a few moments of my time.
As someone who both bikes and drives, I think bikers could also be a lot more aware and conscious that they are piloting a vehicle with no protection around 2 ton or so vehicles. The burden of safety should be split equally regardless of whose vehicle is heavier.
While I've been lucky enough not to see a full-on crash, I've seen a few situations where bikers were almost in very serious accidents here in San Diego where I felt the biker would have totally been at fault if the collision wasn't luckily averted.
When it comes to personal decisions, 100% of the responsibility lies with me. When I'm driving, 100% of the responsibility to avoid hitting a bicyclist lies with me; when I'm biking, 100% of the responsibility to avoid being hit by a car lies with me. The idea being that everyone else on the road is absolutely crazy, so my responsibility is just to be prepared for their insanity and act accordingly. I think this philosophy increases my likelihood of survival.
On the other hand, when it comes to cultural and (to some extent) legal ideas about "responsibility," I do think that the idea that "with great power comes great responsibility" (thanks, Spiderman) is a pretty decent heuristic. Lots of people have no concept of their own vulnerability, and lots of people have no sense of their own power to do harm, but one will hurt me and the other hurts others. Plus, and maybe for that reason, I think it's a lot more difficult to forget vulnerability (it's obvious every time a car flies past 3 feet away) than it is to forget power--passing a bicyclist with a couple feet of room just doesn't feel scary to lots of drivers.
There is one fairly big difference. People who drive cars have to be licensed, with the legal liability that goes with that, and the potential to completely lose that privilege, which is a constraint.
When I hear people here saying that they can go right up to the speed limit on a bike in poor visibility without any concerns, it makes me think cyclists should go through the same process.
I'm a cyclist, and I rode that same stretch, and my bike computer told me I never went above 25 mph. Because I value my life.
For my self preservation I don't bike there. I don't want to be the statistic, and there are so many other places to bicycle without dangerous car traffic. Driving in general works out because the people around us can usually compensate for the mistakes that we'll invariably make, and thus avoid (or mitigate) an accident. This is harder for a bicyclist --- a bicyclist can't accelerate away, handle a swipe, recover from a collision, and is harder to see.
Having biked there (once) it's simple. I apply the brakes on downhills. If you're riding on a bike trail with excellent visibility, you can go flat out. If you're riding on a 2 lane road with no bike lane, poor visibility, and no shoulder, you slow down.
When there are speeding vehicles and no shoulder or bike line, you are usually safer to speed up yourself. If the speed limit is 40, they'll be cars going around the curves at 50. Just after a curve is the most dangerous spot for getting hit from behind, and you really want to get out of there.
This might be true if the speed was not gravity-assisted and at the edge of the athlete's performance. Braddley wiggins can take it 35mph and ride with traffic on the flats. He can accelerate (up and down) on his own volition. 40 miles per hour is more speed than most can handle, in terms of decelleration, on 20-23c slicks high pressure tires with minimal surface area, to a terminal speed of zero. While modern brakes are good, they are not that good. Usually the solution is to swerve (avoidance), but in this case it appears there are no shoulders, and consequences off the Tarmac. It doesn't take 170+ IQ to figure out you need to respect your limits in the terrain--it has objective dangers. As an avid cyclist (and someone with experience in dangerous riding conditions) the arrogance of some others I see (both on the roads in in these comments) is surprising. It seems like there is some territorial issues at play. Regardless, one needs to respect objective hazard and their absolute skill levels as those risks rise.
I drive on some of the roads leading up to Skyline nearly every day and ok, bicyclists have a legal right to the roads too, etc, but it is just exceedingly dangerous, especially when trying to pass a bike going uphill. There's no bike lane, or shoulder, and most bikers will refuse to use what few turnouts there are.
As a bike commuter and roadie, I'll just say that doing ~35mph on roads that have cross traffic without stoplights like this seems crazy to me. The accident could easily have been either one of their fault, or shared fault, I dont know, but that kind of speed on a bike leaves hardly any margin for error. It's kind of like the city cyclist who rides inches away from parallel parked cars on the road - so much risk in getting doored. Anyway, this is a horrible thing to read about...be safe out there fellow riders.
I was just up there for the first time a couple weeks ago and I was surprised by how many bikers I saw. Its one of those streets where locals (in cars) just barrel down the hill bc they are so familiar, while bikers and runners love the area bc its beautiful and provides a challenging workout. Just a reminder that there needs to be a balance. This is really sad news.
Regardless of who's fault it was, it's a terrible tragedy and a sad loss (especially for her little one). Prayers for her family and her loved ones. RIP Joy Covey.
This is a tragedy and I'm sorry for the family. Words are profoundly lamer than can be expressed.
It doesnt mean much that skyline is dangerous as fuck. On a motorcycle or in a car there is a luxury of being able to slow down for blind curves. On a bike, the choices are being one with a car, breaking a collar bone on a redwood or plummeting hundreds of feet. Wiping out or considering leaping over might be options.
For anyone not familiar with Skyline, it's a ridge country road that hugs the mountain range btw the pacific and the valley. It also gets hairier towards Los Gatos IIRC. Random fog and clouds can turn visibility to near zero in an instant. For most of it south of San Mateo county is gentle road with more/less some visibility apart from over-the-horizon hills. In San Mateo, it starts to become twistier and more/less switchbacks up to 92 (crosses skyline). Elk Tree and Skyline decline would be easy to get going faster than that maneuverability would allow.
A guy I used to work with at Stanford bikes San Mateo to campus and back on Skyline. It's the options leading to/from 192 that are most concerning.
Damn important: Quick turn maneuver for cyclists, wouldn't have helped here but it might save your ass one day:
Tragic. My condolences to her family and to the driver of the car (not a situation anyone wants to be a party to I'm sure). I've done this ride a couple of times (OLH to Skyline and back down 84) and from the pictures can swear I've seen her out there before. This is an extremely popular route for cyclists and unfortunately it's also very sketchy (bad lighting, narrow roads, no shoulder, cars and bicycles going around 30-40 on descents), both on OLH and Skyline. For the safety of everyone in those parts perhaps better lighting, slower speed limits, and wider shoulders should be installed. The last time I road out there in early Aug, SB from OLH on Skyline was a fatal car accident and the road was closed.
This stretch of road is actually on the other side of 84 from OLH, so it looks like she was coming down and into the 84 intersection area, probably from going up Kings Mountain. Much of Skyline was repaved within the last year and rendered almost unridable by the crappy (and larger than tolerance chip seal) used by the low bid contractor. I actually dropped that stretch from my regular rotation since the "repaving" practically vibrated out my fillings last time I was up there. In addition to liability assigned to the driver, I'd go after the town and the contractor for road surface as a contributing factor.
I would be interested to hear your proposed algorithm and how it will prevent unintended consequences of such a feature. It sounds like the kind of thing that might make minor accidents more minor but contribute to major accidents at high speeds.
Benz, Toyota, Volvo, and Honda have pedestrian detection now. Volvo has bicyclist detection now and others are adding it.
Air bags are a lot more expensive. It should be possible to make it fairly hard to hit a human with a car in the very near future. Drivers suck at keeping away from bikes. Cars should do this for them.
Because a cyclist needs to do very specific things during an emergency brake to avoid being thrown over the handlebars, so an automatic braking system would probably injure / kill the cyclist.
I would argue that with the right setup (sensors, gyros, on board computer), an automated system could do a much better job than the cyclist. My guess, is that most cyclists stay well under the 'thrown over' threshold when braking, which could be part of the reason some collisions occur (i.e. too little, too late sort of thing). An automated system could probably get you right up to that threshold, and then use gyros for stabilization (to balance the bike). The reason that this won't happen is because no one is going to install this on their bike (whereas most modern cars already have fairly sophisticated on board computers and sensor systems).
The big thing you're missing is that the rider typically outweighs the bike by a factor of 5-10. Even with all this gear your proposing which would definitely weigh something significant (because ounces are significant in bike weight, and weight is the single most important performance metric for a bike), the physical action of the riders body is going to be the dominant effect of anything that happens.
Furthermore, a bike is a lot more agile than a big hunk of steel plodding in a straight line. You can shoot through a tiny gap that a computer would not be able to detect you were aiming for. There is no way to have the necessary safety margin without being totally unusable in practice.
Here's her ride log from Strava over the same segment a week ago (you'll need to log in to see details on the segment):
http://www.strava.com/activities/81767720#1663862661
And here's a screenshot - you can see her speed jump to 30mph just at the blind corner before Elk Tree road, and she accelerates past Elk Tree to 36mph:
http://i.imgur.com/wd4sOjm.png
If she was going 30+ on a downhill (-6.5% grade), it's possible the car was already turning when she hit the corner and she was unable to decelerate, maybe the pavement was wet. But it is about 300ft, so I would expect her to be able to brake in time.