8/8/2020 ~ 10PM. Fatal collision along the 3300 block of E Grant Road near Northway (east of Country Club Road). The name of the bicyclist was not released.
“…it was determined the bicyclist was traveling eastbound on Grant Road in the middle multi-use turn lane.It appears the bicyclist veered into the eastbound median lane and was struck from behind by a …”
For crash categorization purposes in FARS, this will likely be an unsafe lane change by bicyclist (in other words, it’s not a motorist overtaking / strike from behind).
Tangentially related, in the footer of the TPD press release, they always place a traffic fatality summary for City of Tucson comparing current year to previous year period. The number of vehicle (so enclosed vehicle occupants) and motorcyclist is shockingly high year-over-year. Up 200% … can that be? (11 vs. 36). Peds fatals are down a good bit, bicyclist fatals are flat.
Below is the text of the Tucson PD press release:
Contact:Pete Dugan
Sergeant/ Public Information Office
On-call PIO: tpdpio@tucsonaz.gov
FATAL BICYCLE COLLISION 3300 BLOCK OF EAST GRANT Road
The Tucson Police Department is investigating a fatal collision that occurred Saturday evening in Midtown Tucson.On August 8, 2020 at approximately 10:00 p.m., officers from Operations Division Midtown were dispatched to the area of East Grant Road and North Northway Avenue for a report of a serious injury collision involving a vehicle and bicycle. Tucson Fire responded and rendered aid to the adult male bicyclist; however, he was sadly pronounced deceased on scene shortly after their arrival.
Traffic Detectives responded to continue the investigation. Based on interviews conducted by officers and detectives,it was determined the bicyclist was traveling eastbound on Grant Road in the middle multi-use turn lane.It appears the bicyclist veered into the eastbound median lane and was struck from behind by a 2012 Nissan 370z. The driver of the Nissan pulled over, remained on scene and cooperated with the investigation. An officer with the Impaired Driving Enforcement Unit evaluated the driver of the Nissan and determined he was not impaired at the time of the collision.Detectives also determined that speed was not a factor.The bicyclist was not wearing a helmet or reflective clothing. Detectives were able to identify the bicyclist,but his name iscurrently being withheld pending next of kin notification. This is an ongoing investigation and no charges or citations have been issued at this time. Additional details will be released as they become available.
Traffic Fatalities Year to Date:
For 2019 –33 For 2020 –53
Pedestrian –20 Pedestrian –15
Bicycle –2 Bicycle –2
Motorcycle –5 Motorcycle –18
Vehicle -6 Vehicle –18
Interesting, they mention “not wearing reflective clothing”, which is not a legal requirement. There is no mention if the bike had a legally required rear reflector.
To me, there is no question the law is woefully out-of-date – and with currently available tech, bicycles should be required to have front and rear lights. That said, a rear light or reflective clothing is not required.
I notice whenever a cyclists changes lanes it is described as the cyclists “veered” in front of the vehicle. Bicycles are required to use all the lanes when turning off and onto a multilane roadway. (Drivers of automobiles should be aware of this and drive with caution. Essentially, the cyclist was rear ended.) The characterization of “veering” is from a result of the large discrepancy in speeds between bicyclists traveling 10-20 mph and drivers of cars traveling 35, 45 and much faster on our roadways. Maybe drivers and just going too fast for an urban roadway shared with cyclists and pedestrians.
yes, it’s curious police would seize on the clothing thing — and they often do — while failing to mention e.g. anything about a red reflector (since it was struck in the rear).
regarding veering — since we weren’t there it’s impossible to say of course, whether the bicyclist in fact moved so suddenly the motorist could not avoid the collision; or whether e.g. the motorist would have been unable to see (perhaps because it was dark and the cyclist didn’t have proper lighting); or whether the motorist wasn’t looking and caused the collision.
The police do claim there were witnesses (i mean besides the driver).
I’m sure I’m in the minority, but I think the following applies:
ARS 28-701
A. A person shall not drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances, conditions and actual and potential hazards then existing. A person shall control the speed of a vehicle as necessary to avoid colliding with any object, person, vehicle or other conveyance on, entering or adjacent to the highway in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to exercise reasonable care for the protection of others.
Of course, the law states you can’t dart in front of traffic as a pedestrian, or open your car door suddenly in front of traffic, etc. Unfortunately, the TPD report fails to adequately confirm if this is what happened – or if the cyclists simply was making a maneuver to turn on or off the road. I feel that most people realize our current roadway conditions are absurd, and therefore any cyclist crazy enough to try to exercise their right to travel on a roadway is at fault.
But crossing a multilane roadway to turn left onto or off of the road results in a large speed discrepancy That would make it seem like the cyclist “veered” in front of the car -especially at night, when our laws do not require good illumination. However, I’d counter that the driver of the automobile needs to anticipate such situations (especially in urban conditions) and slow down accordingly.
yes, that’s the “basic speed law”; whether police apply it in a biased way against cyclists is not knowable for any particular instance.
Reading the formal police report may or may not be enlightening.
This one has a couple of similarities, it was at night, and the bicyclist was hit from behind:
I was given a copy of the full report by the family of the victim: https://azbikelaw.org/man-badly-hurt-in-chandler-collision/ I see I never got around to writing up a detailed synopsis; but in the report the investigator seemed to make much of the fact that the victim was wearing black shorts, and wearing a black backpack; while also mentioning he had a rear flasher. So while it seemed biased, the report did conclude that the driver should have been able to yield, he just straight-up rammed the bicyclist; and thus the driver was at fault. Personally i think it rose to the level of negligent homicide but at least PD did get the fault correct, despite what they (PD) said in social media which was annoying.