Police release more details about bicyclist struck on Washtenaw Avenue
The 51-year-old Ann Arbor man hit by a car on Washtenaw Avenue Sunday night remains in serious but stable condition, police said Tuesday.
Investigators also released more information about the incident.
The incident occurred just before 11 p.m. in the 2200 block of Washtenaw Avenue between the East Stadium Boulevard split and Brockman Boulevard. The 51-year-old was inbound when he was hit by a 24-year-old Ypsilanti man driving a Honda Accord in the same direction, said Ann Arbor police Officer Steven Dye.
Dye said the bicyclist was riding in the left travel lane and his bike did not have lights on it.
“The driver just didn’t see him and struck him from behind,” Dye added.
The 51-year-old man suffered head lacerations and broken bones and was transported to University of Michigan Hospital where he remains, officials said.
The 24-year-old did pull over and was on scene when responders arrived, Dye said.
Investigators don't believe speed was a factor, however they are still looking into whether alcohol played a part.
Dye said along that stretch of the road, a bicyclist should be as far to the right as possible. At night, the bike should have a white light in front and a red light in back.
Neither the driver of the car nor the bicyclist have been issued any citations. Dye said that would be up to the prosecutor's office once police submit their findings.
The investigation into the incident continues.
John Counts covers cops and courts for AnnArbor.com. He can be reached at johncounts@annarbor.com or you can follow him on Twitter.
Comments
John
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 3:44 p.m.
So many comments, so much bad information. Yes, cyclists have the legal right to operate their human-powered vehicles on local and state roads except where specifically prohibited by law such as a limited access freeway. No, cyclists are not legally required to use sidewalks or multi-use paths instead of a road. Yes, cyclists using roads at night are legally required to have correctly functioning safety equipment, specifically reflectors and lights. No, cyclists on a road are not legally required to stay on the right side of the right-most lane at all times. There are exceptions to the right hand rule, the most obvious being a bicyclist should turn left from the left-most lane. Yes, some cyclists disobey traffic rules. They shouldn't. No, motor vehicle operators are not themselves free from fault when it comes to disobeying traffic rules. In the United States more than 40,000,000 speeding tickets are issued each year and there are more than 5,000,000 vehicle accidents and more than 30,000 accident-related deaths, all unrelated to bicycles. Also, studies of motor vehicle-bicycle accidents have found motor vehicle operators to be the at fault party more than 50% of the time. Yes, bicyclists should contribute to the upkeep of the roads they use. Almost all do. My situation is not untypical: I pay property taxes on a house in Ann Arbor as well as registration fees on both a car and a light duty truck but I bicycle commute to work 12 months a year.
RedSchwinn
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 11:47 p.m.
Nice summation, John, clearly stated and even-handed.. As both a renter and a full-time cyclist who neither owns nor leases a car, I do contribute to the upkeep of the roads I use. I don't sign a check to pay property taxes, but I know that my landlord includes property taxes in calculation of the rent that I pay... as all of the purveyors of goods and services I consume factor property tax into their pricing. And the pricing also includes consideration of the fuel and use taxes that are part of the expense for delivery of those goods and services. I would gladly pay a $25 - $50 annual bicycle license fee if it would help maintain the infrastructure that I share with motorized vehicles. I would point out, but not complain, that a $50 license fee would be disproportionate, since Michigan vehicle registration fees are based on weight.
what4
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 1:49 p.m.
Our bicyclists demanded and we spent about $1m. constructed a beautiful smooth wide asphalt bike path well separated from the road all along Washtenaw Ave. Until the bicyclists use that I really am not interested in spending any more resources on them, we have far greater needs in our city.
a2citizen
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 4:57 p.m.
Michigan Vehicle Code, Act 300 of 1949 257.55 "Roadway" defined. "Roadway" means that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily USED FOR VEHICULAR TRAVEL 257.64 "Street or highway" defined. "Street or highway" means the entire width between boundary lines of every way publicly maintained when any part thereof is open to the use of the public FOR PURPOSES OF VEHICULAR TRAVEL. 257.60 "Sidewalk" defined. "Sidewalk" means that portion of a street between the curb lines, or the lateral lines of roadway, and the adjacent property lines intended FOR THE USE OF PEDESTRIANS.
Nicholas Urfe
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 4:29 p.m.
1. they aren't your bicyclists 2. nobody demanded the path 3. people need to cross roads Roads are for people, not cars.
Tru2Blu76
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 1:40 p.m.
I stand corrected: Brian Genisio provided the following in response to my statement that only bike reflectors are required in Michigan: From 257.662 (1): (1) A bicycle or an electric personal assistive mobility device being operated on a roadway between 1/2 hour after sunset and 1/2 hour before sunrise shall be equipped with a lamp on the front which shall emit a white light visible from a distance of at least 500 feet to the front and with a red reflector on the rear which shall be visible from all distances from 100 feet to 600 feet to the rear when directly in front of lawful lower beams of head lamps on a motor vehicle. A lamp emitting a red light visible from a distance of 500 feet to the rear may be used in addition to the red reflector. Which raises the next point: it would be great if MDOT made this more widely known to the public. Cyclists (and I'm one who does use lights) should be aware that white light in front and red light in rear are REQUIRED. It would probably help if our own AABTS and WBWC got behind this too. By which I mean: my own perception may be wrong but I don't recall seeing any notices about this requirement in the newsletters of either organization. Nor have I been around if it was ever discussed or otherwise disseminated. Couple more things: Since it IS the law, maybe now the AAPD and City Council will decide it has SOME TEETH and start ticketing "lightless" cyclists who are riding at night. Also, it appears to be completely legal to sell bicycles without lights installed, but just try making a car without headlights and tail lights.
Nicholas Urfe
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 4:28 p.m.
"A lamp emitting a red light visible from a distance of 500 feet to the rear may be used in addition to the red reflector." "may be" != "REQUIRED"
M-Wolverine
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 1:23 p.m.
Making no comment on "fault" I will say that I was driving (not in that area, Main-Saline) just before 11 pm and the rain and the darkness made visibility almost non-existant. I was particularly worried by the fact that this could happen - I wouldn't see a biker (or pedestrian running in the rain) until I was practically on top of him, even going below the posted limits, if he didn't have a light on. So I tried to stick to the middle lanes away from the bike lanes....and that wouldn't have helped in this case.
Dirty Mouth
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 11:51 a.m.
Every time i see a cyclist with lights and reflectors, I thank the gods of logic and safety.
RMKing
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 10:18 a.m.
I would want to compare the cyclist with a pedestrian. If a pedestrian had been hit, rather than a person on a bicycle, what would your reaction be? Presumably the cyclist was preparing to turn left, which means he had full rights to the left lane. Under Michigan law, a bicycle is a vehicle, entitled to the full lane. "I didn't see him" is an admission that the driver of the car did not see a moving object directly in his path. That should be tantamount to saying, "I should never operate a motor vehicle again." It shouldn't be an excuse for bad behavior; it should be an admission of guilt. To those of you admitting that you don't see moving objects in your path: Please turn in your drivers licenses now. You're a threat to the community.
jcj
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 8:55 p.m.
Why is it someone can say there are too many dangerous drivers but I can't say there are too many dangerous bikers and pedestrians.i know I used a different word I hope this stands.
Nicholas Urfe
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 4:27 p.m.
I frequently see pedestrians stop in the left turn lane to complete a street crossing. It is a very, very dangerous practice, even during daylight. There are too many dangerous drivers.
actionjackson
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 2:49 p.m.
Under Michigan law, a bicycle is a vehicle, entitled to the full lane. With proper lighting and protection from vehicles traveling 3 to 4 times their speed. Common sense has to kick in sometime. Why risk being right and end up in this poor fellows condition. Pedestrians are rarely in the left lane of traffic from my experience.
jcj
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 1:39 p.m.
Nicholas Is it game over if the biker was drunk?
jcj
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 1:35 p.m.
Nicholas Just when I think we have some common ground you sat King makes "excellent points" What? He only shows a total disdain for drivers. As do you most of the time.
jcj
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 1:33 p.m.
RMKing This might be at the top of the list for ridiculous post. If a pedestrian was in the left lane jogging or standing my reaction would be exactly the same. Which is the driver did not have a chance to react! To suggest otherwise is ludicrous at best! "Presumably the cyclist was preparing to turn left" You are presuming a lot! I have just as much right or evidence to presume otherwise! Sheesh!
Silly Sally
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 12:53 p.m.
It is "game over" since the bike had no lights on a very dark road. If it were daytime, then it would be a very different story. But it was a dark night.
a2citizen
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 12:34 p.m.
"If the driver was drunk". This sound bite keeps getting floated. Standard police procedure would be to give the driver a BAC test. If the driver was drunk he would have been arrested. I wonder if they gave a BAC test to the bicyclist.
Nicholas Urfe
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 12:23 p.m.
@RMKing: you make excellent points. I would completely agree with you except the bike did not have any lights. Some of those areas are very dark and it can be very difficult to see. Also, we don't know if either of them had been drinking. If the car driver was drunk, it should be game over in regard to the 'not seeing' excuse.
a2citizen
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 11:29 a.m.
Do you realize this accident happened at 11 o'clock at night?
TommyJ
Tue, Jun 25, 2013 : 11:50 p.m.
"At night, the bike should have a white light in front and a red light in back. " Is that a law or local ordinance?
RedSchwinn
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 2:21 p.m.
Most Michigan bicycle law is at best a kludge, trying to temper the traffic code with some minimal safety considerations for non-motorized vehicles operating in an environment designed for motorized vehicles. As with most cobbled-together systems, bicycle regulations work most of the time, but they don't guarantee safety. Given the wildly uneven enforcement (even understanding) of what few legal guidelines there are for bicycle safety, this is hardly surprising. The legal ramifications of where the cyclist was positioned in the road and whether he had proper lights or reflectors are concerns for the police and prosecutor. Cyclists can't depend on these clumsy laws to protect them.. they have to be smarter than that. I commute by bicycle, about 2500 miles each year, and I try to always be vigilant in my own defense out there on the road. And "share the road" works both ways... it's the Golden Rule of traffic flow. Show the other vehicles on the road the respect and courtesy you would like to receive, and obey the rules of the road as you expect the other vehicles to obey them.
Nicholas Urfe
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 12:25 p.m.
"It should be noted that some believe that I am more of a risk to be hit by drunk drivers because of my flashing lights." And maybe epileptics. I have a family member who has been hit on his bike three times, each time by a drunk driver. A couple of the times were in the middle of the day.
Brian Genisio
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 1:05 a.m.
That being said, cyclists should make themselves as visible as possible. I ride with a flashing white front light, a flashing red rear with a white strobe) and I wear a reflective vest lined with flashing LEDs. I look like a Christmas tree going down the road. It should be noted that some believe that I am more of a risk to be hit by drunk drivers because of my flashing lights.
Brian Genisio
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 1:03 a.m.
Michigan law requires a wihte light in front and a red reflector (light optional) in the rear: From 257.662(1) of the MIchigan vehicle code: http://www.m-bike.org/blog/laws/
a2citizen
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 12:04 a.m.
It's common sense.
JRW
Tue, Jun 25, 2013 : 11:35 p.m.
I do think that the street lighting should be reviewed, and whether it was a factor in this case. Yes, there weren't proper lights on the bike, and it sounds like the cyclist was traveling in the wrong lane, based on the article (I'm not assigning blame), but street lighting is not adequate in many areas of the city. This creates difficulty for everyone, drivers, pedestrians and cyclists. I've driven down residential streets with lights out or no street lights at all. This needs to be taken into account.
KJMClark
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 2:04 a.m.
As noted above, MCL 257.662 requires a headlight, but only a rear reflector. Otherwise, agreed, streetlights help, they're often out, and it's a pain to report them.
justcurious
Tue, Jun 25, 2013 : 9:35 p.m.
I suppose it could be possible that he was in the far left lane intending to make a left turn. But without lights it would not matter much whether he was in the left or right lane. Even on my motorcycle I have numerous lights on the front and back of my bike in order to be seen by motorists.
KJMClark
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 2:02 a.m.
justcurious - bicycles aren't required to have rear lights - highly recommended, but not required. They are required to have functioning headlights at night. Ann - right on. I won't bike at night without head and tail lights. In the winter, I also run a spoke light. I see too many motorists driving around with their headlights off.
Ann English
Tue, Jun 25, 2013 : 10:07 p.m.
I see the advantage now of lights over reflectors. A motorist's peripheral vision won't pick the sight of a bicyclist having only reflectors, because headlamps don't shine on reflectorized surfaces to their left and right, only straight ahead. Bike lights can be seen peripherally, even for motorists with their own headlamps off.
Mary Ann Barbary
Tue, Jun 25, 2013 : 9:26 p.m.
I always wear a helmet and I have lights on my bike. I always ride with traffic, in the bike lane if there is one. I am 55 years old. Often, I need to ride home after an event when it is dark. Sometimes I need to cross a busy road. Sometimes I have to travel on one for a short distance. Sometimes there is NO OTHER OPTION -- I have to attend some evening events for my job. It can be difficult to turn, across 4-5 lanes of car traffic. Nine times out of ten on busy roads, I stop at an intersection, wait for a break in the car traffic, and then go with the cross street traffic. But you know, sometimes I've been working 10 hours and I just want CAR DRIVERS to obey the traffic laws and allow me to make a left from the travel lane while signaling! I have seen cars on East Stadium going 50 miles per hour -- especially later in the evening when traffic is light. We all have. Car drivers need to be vigilant for other living beings in front of them: squirrels, road workers, pedestrians, lost dogs, skunks, people in wheelchairs and using walkers, and YES, people riding bicycles. Whether or not this bicyclist was observing safety precautions like wearing a helmet or displaying lights, a person crossing on foot wouldn't be. When driving we need to slow down, put the cellphone down, be observant, and act like a person, not a tank.
a2roots
Tue, Jun 25, 2013 : 11:45 p.m.
Appears you are making several assumptions here. One of the first things you learn in drivers education is not to swerve your vehicle if an animal is in front of you. If you can't stop to bad for the critter but at least you did not roll over or hit someone else head on to avoid a skunk.
thinker
Tue, Jun 25, 2013 : 8:58 p.m.
Helmet?
deletedcomment
Tue, Jun 25, 2013 : 8:34 p.m.
Glad to see all the pro bike people are here to defend this persons actions... And what I mean by that is they are not here.
Brian Genisio
Thu, Jun 27, 2013 : 1:06 a.m.
@a2roots 20mph isn't terribly fast on a bike. In the summer, yes, I sweat a bit, but I'm not pushing terribly hard. 23-25 mph would be pushing it. But whatever snarky comment you have, my argument holds at 15 mph. I will not dial back to safe speeds on bike paths, because safe cycling speeds are 7 or 8 mph.
deletedcomment
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 3:56 p.m.
Thank you all for the feedback. If you have not yet noticed I tend to play devils advocate. My point was if the tables were turned there would be a hundred plus comments on how the driver should be thrown to the wolves. We must refrain from displaying this level of hypocrisy if we want to encourage coexistence between non-motorized and motorized traffic.
a2roots
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 1:48 p.m.
@Brian, You would be at the extreme top end of the commuter bicyclist. Just like everything else it is impossible to satisfy all levels of aptitude. Sometimes you have to dial back and realize that, much like I have to when I encounter reduced vehicle lanes in areas where there are no bicyclists using the bike lanes. You say we need more and better and I say prove it with actual numbers. Build it and they will come does not appear to work. Btw you must be a sweaty mess when you get to work. Does your employer not care about appearance or do they provide showers and changing facility?
Nicholas Urfe
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 12:30 p.m.
@Brian: well said.
Brian Genisio
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 3:41 a.m.
@a2roots: I'm cross-posting this comment from the other story, but it goes like this: "Non-motorized bike paths" are a bit like getting a really expensive birthday gift that you never wanted and cannot return. These bike paths are not just bike paths, but bi-directional multi-use paths. As a cycle commuter who tends to ride about 20mph on my bike, these paths are useless. There are walkers, joggers, kids, strollers, dogs, and countless people who don't know what "on your left" means. They are bi-directional -- another 20mph cyclist traveling the opposite direction creates a 40mph relative obstacle. Cars are only 15mph relative speed to me. They are riddled with blind spots and plenty of intersections that I don't have to yield for when riding in the road. I am more of a safety hazard to the other users of the path than cars are on the road to me. There is a reason why cycling in the road is still legal even if there are "non-motorized paths" available. This is why.
KJMClark
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 2:44 a.m.
Shows you how often I go through there. Yes, there is a sidepath there now. No, it's not a bike lane, and cyclists are not required to use glorified sidewalks, no matter how glorified they are.
KJMClark
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 2:16 a.m.
Well deleted, partly we didn't all see the story update. Partly everyone, including the officer, it sounds like, is jumping to conclusions about what the cyclist was doing, whether he had a (not required) taillight, etc. Still too early to figure out what happened. a2roots - because it's almost never safer for a cyclist to use a sidewalk, even if they make it wider than usual. And AFAIK, there is no such path on that section of Washtenaw. There are four narrow lanes with a sidewalk on the Tappan side. I drove through there a few days ago and didn't notice anything new.
aturid
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 1:35 a.m.
Maybe that's because the "pro bike people" are perfectly content to sit back and watch as the anti-bike contingent gloats over this tragic incident. Classy.
a2roots
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 1:15 a.m.
@Brian, help me understand why a bicyclist should be in the road when there is a relatively new bike path in the area. The road here does not have a bike lane. The paths along Washtenaw were redone to accommodate and offer a safer ride.
Brian Genisio
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 1:08 a.m.
As a pro-cycling person, it is hard to advocate for night riding without appropriate lights and (alleged) improper positioning in the road. We believe strongly that the cyclist should be in the road (even at night) but that he/she should do so in a safe, visible, and predictable way. We also hope very much that this person is OK.
foobar417
Tue, Jun 25, 2013 : 10:58 p.m.
In case it's not obvious, most people just wish the cyclist a speedy recovery and sympathize with how the driver must feel. "Pro-safety" people advocate for safer streets for drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians to reduce the incidence of traffic injuries and deaths. In the event of a crash, they don't immediately blame the victim or the driver or assume that everyone on a bike or driving a car is flawless. The cyclist in this question may well have done something illegal or maybe just unlucky. Neither you nor I have enough facts to know.
a2cents
Tue, Jun 25, 2013 : 10:15 p.m.
It would be legal to be in the left lane if turning left... Lights are nice but the minute you depend on them they fall off or the batteries are dead. Reflectors are a good backup (along w/ reflective/bright clothing).
a2citizen
Tue, Jun 25, 2013 : 10:09 p.m.
Yes, the silence is deafening.
jns131
Tue, Jun 25, 2013 : 10:02 p.m.
I have to agree with you on this one.
Tru2Blu76
Tue, Jun 25, 2013 : 7:55 p.m.
The law requires only reflectors on bikes. This should be updated so that lights are mandatory during periods of darkness and poor visibility. Do not depend on bike reflectors to make yourself visible! We could all do well to contact our state legislators on this matter. While walking on Packard between Arch and Grainger, I've seen two cyclists hit under the same "poor light" conditions. Each cyclist was using the bike lane and there were no stop signals - but they didn't have lights on their bikes. Cars coming off side streets hit both cyclists because drivers COULD NOT SEE them until the cyclist got right in front of them. The reason there were no injuries was because both cars were sitting at a dead stop and the drivers had that one instant to brake before hitting the cyclists. Also RE: the recent proposal to have city bike sharing stations. I doubt those bikes will have lights on them. No bikes should be "freely available" unless they are equipped with lights and some way is devised to ensure that their lights will turn on automatically (like street lights) when visibility is low. Otherwise: the city might look forward to law suits. Additionally, police should be on the lookout for cyclists riding without lights - just like they do for motor vehicles.
Tru2Blu76
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 1:06 p.m.
Thanks Brian for that information. I've been a member of AABTS and WBWC but I've NEVER heard (or seen) discussion on this. Odd - I think - that so many cyclists are unaware that state law calls for the lighting as described in 257.662. IMO: it'd be great if AABTS and WBWC did some proactive "awareness raising" among their members. For that matter, maybe if MDOT did more to highlight the legal necessity for lights, the overall "attitude" would improve.
Silly Sally
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 12:38 p.m.
The law is silly. If I have to choose, I rather have the REAR light, so cars behind me that I cannot see can see and avoid me. I can see those ahead ov me and take evasive action. Oh, so silly!
Brian Genisio
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 1 a.m.
That's only half correct. Michigan law requires a white light in the front and a red reflector in the rear with the option of a light in the rear. From 257.662 (1): (1) A bicycle or an electric personal assistive mobility device being operated on a roadway between 1/2 hour after sunset and 1/2 hour before sunrise shall be equipped with a lamp on the front which shall emit a white light visible from a distance of at least 500 feet to the front and with a red reflector on the rear which shall be visible from all distances from 100 feet to 600 feet to the rear when directly in front of lawful lower beams of head lamps on a motor vehicle. A lamp emitting a red light visible from a distance of 500 feet to the rear may be used in addition to the red reflector.
cornelius McDougenschniefferburgenstein jr. 3 esq.
Tue, Jun 25, 2013 : 9:44 p.m.
i believe a2,ypsi,etc. have ordinances requiring lights.
DJBudSonic
Tue, Jun 25, 2013 : 8:23 p.m.
I saw a rendering of the proposed bikes at green fair and it looked like they had lights.
you can't handle the truth
Tue, Jun 25, 2013 : 7:40 p.m.
columbo will get the bottom of this.
John Counts
Tue, Jun 25, 2013 : 6:44 p.m.
I specifically asked the Ann Arbor police officer if this particular bicyclist was where he needed to legally be on the road and he said no.
Silly Sally
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 12:34 p.m.
If there is a bike path or a sidewalk, (sidewalks are rarely used at 11 PM) and I had no light, I would use it and not be on a dark 40 MPH road in the fast or left lane, even if it is my legal right (which is doubtful). There is not a place to turn left, unless it is a dirveway. But if I had to turn. I would stop on the right and wait fro a break in traffic. I've done this since I was a small child. I never, ever trust ALL drivers of cars to see me and avoid me. I feel bad for this bike rider, but also for the poor motorist.
Holanta
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 3:01 a.m.
http://www.annarbor.com/news/ann-arbor-officials-inviting-public-to-check-out-new-11-mile-path-along-washtenaw-avenue/?cmpid=RSS_link_news Maybe not a bike lane, but still a bike path. Would have been the better choice if you ask me, even when the biker did nothing illegal.
KJMClark
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 2:42 a.m.
And side paths are *not* bike lanes.
Holanta
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 2:10 a.m.
There is a bike path there.
KJMClark
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 1:57 a.m.
If a cyclist is preparing to make a left turn, they most certainly do not have to wait until there's no traffic. First, there is no bike lane here, so please stop referring to one. If he was in the right lane, he has to signal his intention well beforehand, verify that he can move the left side of the right lane safely, then do that. Now, still in advance of the turn, he has to make a lane change, just like he would in a car - signal, look for an opening, make sure he's check any blind spot, and move when there's an opening large enough for any motorist he's moving in front of to have time to safely adjust their speed if necessary. This is all speculation, of course. We don't know that he was making a left turn, though that's the most likely reason for him to have been in the left lane. There are other legal reasons, though there's no mention of other traffic, construction, etc. By law, he wasn't required to have a rear light. He was required to have a headlight and a rear reflector. We're also assuming a lot about the motorist - lights functioning and on, not speeding, etc.
Craig Lounsbury
Tue, Jun 25, 2013 : 11:12 p.m.
Tru, my wording was clumsy and incomplete. I was pointing out that the law says bikes need to stay to the far right BUT it allows for a few exceptions as indicated in the link I provided. 257.660a Operation of bicycle upon highway or street; riding close to right-hand curb or edge of roadway; exceptions. Sec. 660a. A person operating a bicycle upon a highway or street at less than the existing speed of traffic shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except as follows: (a) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or any other vehicle proceeding in the same direction. (b) When preparing to turn left. (c) When conditions make the right-hand edge of the roadway unsafe or reasonably unusable by bicycles, including, but not limited to, surface hazards, an uneven roadway surface, drain openings, debris, parked or moving vehicles or bicycles, pedestrians, animals, or other obstacles, or if the lane is too narrow to permit a vehicle to safely overtake and pass a bicycle. (d) When operating a bicycle in a lane in which the traffic is turning right but the individual intends to go straight through the intersection. (e) When operating a bicycle upon a 1-way highway or street that has 2 or more marked traffic lanes, in which case the individual may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of that roadway as practicable.
Tru2Blu76
Tue, Jun 25, 2013 : 9:14 p.m.
@Craig: I know from your posts that you're an intelligent guy. But the wording of the regulation you've cited is ridiculous. (Not your fault) Wouldn't it be "fun" to see everyone trying to get into position and make left turns "at the posted speed limit??" The rule that prevailed long ago was: take a position to make a legal left turn when traffic allows. Then, after observing the "counterclockwise rule" which allows drivers on the right to make their turns first, enter and "take possession" of the intersection and make your left turn when there's a break in oncoming traffic. This is one reason why "bike paths vs bike lanes" remains controversial. Coming off a bike path and crossing at a suitable spot executes the left turn without having the cyclist traverse traffic lanes from the right hand bike lane. Cyclists must wait until traffic clears before leaving a bike lane and getting into position for a left turn (with appropriate hand signals to alert others of your intentions). That means traversing the right hand motor vehicle lane. If a cyclist attempts that under poor light conditions when traffic is moving fairly fast - neither the cyclist nor motorists coming from behind them have any "guarantee" there won't be a collision.
Craig Lounsbury
Tue, Jun 25, 2013 : 8:49 p.m.
Edit above post.... unless they are traveling at the posted speed limit they need to be as far to the right side as safely possible.
Craig Lounsbury
Tue, Jun 25, 2013 : 8:47 p.m.
Tom, there are situations like turning left when a bike can be in the left lane but, unless they are traveling at the posted speed limit . Here is a link http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-257-660a
Tom
Tue, Jun 25, 2013 : 8:34 p.m.
Police officers are not infallible. It is absolutely legal for a bike to be in the left travel lane. Bicycles have the same rights as vehicles.
Chris4salvationarmy
Tue, Jun 25, 2013 : 6:43 p.m.
I just found out that I actually know the person who was hit by a car while riding his bike. Yes it is true that he should have had lights and reflectors on his bike, that is a given. However, and what ever the case may be...this man is my daughters best friends father. He is a person, who makes mistakes, as we all do! Lets not try to put any blame on anyone, lets remember that he is human and he is a father, uncle, brother, etc... Lets pray for him and his family and for the person who accidently hit him. Im sure the driver is probably feeling horrible about this even if it was not his fault!
PattyinYpsi
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 7:54 p.m.
"Let's not try to put any blame on anyone...." While I understand that you want everyone to feel sympathy for biker and driver, the fact is that blame will be assigned--by the police, by insurance companies, and, if the cyclist decides to make another bad life choice, by the courts.
DeeDee
Tue, Jun 25, 2013 : 9:22 p.m.
I am happy to pray for his recovery, and also that all the cyclists who fail to use lights appropriately at night will start doing so. The driver who couldn't see him, while not physically injured, is probably distraught about this accident and deserves our sympathy as well. I often see cyclists riding in the dark without lights or reflective clothing and I am just thankful to have spotted them!
jcj
Tue, Jun 25, 2013 : 8:24 p.m.
Chris Very well said. Many of us find it easy to criticize. But if it were our friend or family member we would not be so judgmental. Thank for the reminder. My thoughts are with both involved.
E Claire
Tue, Jun 25, 2013 : 7:32 p.m.
Regardless of how some people are posting, you can tell the family that many are praying for him. This is a sad situation for all involved.
Tom Teague
Tue, Jun 25, 2013 : 6:30 p.m.
I know it's stating the obvious, but a couple of bright lights -- one for front and one for back -- are a minor investment compared to the cost of an accident such as this one. Whether lights would have prevented this remains to be seen, but they could have given the bicyclist a bit of an edge. After barely seeing a cyclist who was depending on a small reflective strip to announce his presence one evening, I went out and bought a good set of lights for my own evening or rainy day cycling.
Silly Sally
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 12:02 p.m.
No, not "a bit of an edge." Lights would have made the difference. How could this poor driver see a bike in darkness. I've seen some bikes with great lights and then I've seen the fools with none, after passing them.
daisy
Tue, Jun 25, 2013 : 6:27 p.m.
I cannot even count how many times I have been driving during dusk hours or when it is dark outside and I have encountered a bicyclist that I couldn't even see until I got right up on them..due to ill reflectors or none at all. I'm not saying that was the case here and I pray that this bicyclist is going to be ok. I don't know if that is even true in this case at all as far as the reflector situation. It's just that my husband and I have numerous times been startled by bike riders when it is dark outside. It's just kind of a risky thing in my opinion.
Silly Sally
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : noon
The Ann Arbor police would be doing the public a servic if they would be agressive about giving out tickets to those who have no lights and reflectors. Word would spread, fast.
Billy
Tue, Jun 25, 2013 : 6:24 p.m.
"Dye said the bicyclist was riding in the left travel lane and his bike did not have lights on it." Ok, so for clarification, he wasn't in the BIKE lane, but he was in the left most AUTOMOBILE lane?
Silly Sally
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 11:58 a.m.
@KJM Klark - Legal or not R U joking? I would never want to be in the left lane of a dark road at night on a bike, even with a light when cars can legally travel at 40 or 45 MPH. Then, then man had no light! Car drivers are not required to have noght vision goggles. When I rode on this road a that time of night, I had a light, and when the random car approached, I made sure that I hugged the curb. If the lane is too narrow, and if a pack of cars were to come, I'm off the road. I was more concerned with my safety than my legal rights.
KJMClark
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 2:19 a.m.
There are no bike lanes there. The officer is plainly wrong in stating that he should have had a rear light - no rear light is required by law. The old AA ordinance that required that is now gone, and state law doesn't require it. If the officer got that wrong, you have to wonder if he really knew the cyclists wasn't turning left. If the cyclist was turning left, he had a perfectly good reason to be in the left lane. And left lanes are *not* "reserved" for motorists. Cyclists are required to keep to the right unless one of the numerous exceptions applies, including preparing to make a left turn. I bike in the left lane on Plymouth near Traverwood every weekday, perfectly legally, because I'm preparing to make a left turn just after the light.
markguy
Tue, Jun 25, 2013 : 11:43 p.m.
Billy, What bike lane? There is no bike lane on that section of Washtenaw. And if "inbound" means towards downtown, then there's no sidewalk/path either. Nasty place to ride a bike at 11pm.
amlive
Tue, Jun 25, 2013 : 9:10 p.m.
Marc - cyclists are not required to use the off-road path, and are legally entitled to use the road even if an off-road path exists (road can be a valid choice if the path is in disrepair). That being said, they are also required to use lights 1/2 hour after sunset and before sunrise, and to ride as far to the right side of the road as safely possible. Of course even if cyclists do have these legal rights, it's not always wise to fully exercise them. Dark night on a busy road during bar time, if an off road bike lane is available I'd take it. And I'd wear a helmet. I wish this man the best in his recovery.
John Counts
Tue, Jun 25, 2013 : 6:45 p.m.
foobar417: As I also stated in the comments below: I specifically asked the Ann Arbor police officer if this particular bicyclist was where he needed to legally be on the road and he said no.
foobar417
Tue, Jun 25, 2013 : 6:42 p.m.
@John Counts: John, I believe a bike is legally supposed to be in the left travel lane (take the lane) if you are turning left. That said, you are supposed to have adequate lights and reflectors, use a hand signal, etc. While we don't know if he did the latter, he apparently did not do the former.
Marc Stephens
Tue, Jun 25, 2013 : 6:36 p.m.
Correction: cyclist should have been up on the walking/biking path that runs along Washtenaw in this area. As a cyclist myself, people like this that don't follow basic biking sense really jerk my chain.
John Counts
Tue, Jun 25, 2013 : 6:36 p.m.
He was not in the bike lane. He was in the left lane reserved for vehicle travel. Dye said this is not legally where a bicyclist should be riding.