Conference noted::bicycle

A girl I work with told me her friend was the driver of the ambulance that was
called to the scene. There were two bikers riding *side by side* as a truck was
passing them. One of the riders hit the other and sent him into the trucks
following wheels. The driver of the truck was not cited. 

Very sad people left to remember this for a long time.

	I heard that these riders worked for NEC in Boxboro.  This is
	kind of scary since I ride on those roads in that area a lot.

	chris

RE .2
    >I heard that these riders worked for NEC in Boxboro.  This is
    >kind of scary since I ride on those roads in that area a lot.

    It really doesn't matter what area you ride in, most secondary roads
    with moderate traffic carry some risk, especially roads like route 117
    and 119.  

    One problem I've found is that many tractor trailer drivers consider
    themselves "precision" drivers.  As a result, they think nothing of 
    passing bicyclists dangerously close.  An article in Bicycling magazine
    suggested riding in from the shoulder of the road a couple of feet.  
    This forces the trucker to give a wider berth, so he won't come as 
    close.  Riding on the shoulder allows him to better gauge where you 
    are relative to the edge of the road so he tends to come much closer.
    I've tried riding closer to the center of the road, away from the
    shoulder,  as suggested by the article, and it does work, but I feel 
    less secure riding like that.

    Of course, riding two abreast on a road like that is really asking for
    trouble.

    Regards,
    Denis

    	It's a tragedy that the dangers of riding double in traffic have
    to be illustrated in this way, but I hope the macho 'I can ride my bike
    any way I want to, screw the cars' attitude that I see so often gets
    tempered, at least locally.
    	I wonder how many lives could be saved each year if we ALL rode in
    the manner illustrated in Effective Cycling?  - Chris

    As a bicycle commuter, but as also the owner of a large truck, it
    drives me nuts when I see riders two or three feet away from the curb.
    When I ride, I stay on the white line or to the right of it.  I also
    use a rear view mirror, and keep tabs on what type of vehicles are
    approaching from front and rear.  It doesn't happen that often, but
    on a narrow road if a large truck is coming from behind and one from
    the front and they look like they're going to meet where I am, I'll
    leave the road; screw "rights".  kb

    WE are not all blessed with white lines upon which we can ride.  In
    this part of the country there are many white lines which are on top of
    broken edges of pavement.
    
    ed

    
    Right - the guy with more tonnage has the right of way.  I've found
    most truckers to be very careful and polite, by the way.  The bigger
    the rig, the more polite, usually.  It's the local, smaller jobs that
    seem to be in such a hurry, and maybe don't have a good idea how wide
    their vehicles are.
    
    But, irritating to the driver or not, if it looks to me like there
    wouldn't be enough room for a vehicle to pass me safely without
    crossing the center line (judging from the vehicle's width, as viewed
    in my mirror), I move out to make sure his/her *reflexes* get the
    picture that to pass me, you have to change lanes ... and take 
    oncoming traffic into account.
    
    We are dealing with the subconscious here. That includes Gestalt,
    and decisions based upon automatic categorization.  For example,
    "That bike's really not taking up any room on the road anyway,
    so it's safe to barrel on through."  Another one: "That bump or
    pothole or bit of gravel wouldn't bother my 3/4-Ton Dooley - why
    would it bother a bike? Surely he/she won't swerve to avoid it."
    
    By the way, the head of the NC Bicycle Program (hence, a State
    official or employee) told our bike club that she follows the
    same precept, and recommends it - if it's not safe for the guy
    to pass, move out from the curb and don't let him.  Period.
    
    -john
    
    PS: This may not have any bearing on the very sad case in Stow
    that we are talking about.

    My wife just read me the article on the accident in the Stow Villager.
    
    Some corrections:  There were three bikers, not two.  The report says
    that the truck was travelling north, and a car was approaching heading
    south.  The truck crowded the cyclists, the first bicyclist put on his
    brakes, the second one hit him and fell under the wheel of the truck.
    
    Although it does not say this, it appears to me that the cyclists were
    probably *not* riding two abreast, since the second one hit the first
    one.
    
    Police conclusion:  Cyclist error, the driver is not being charged.
    
    My conclusion:  This is OUTRAGEOUS!  The truck was obviously passing
    the cyclists when he did not have enough room or visibilty to pass them
    safely.  If the truck driver either (1) did not have enough sight
    distance to pass the cyclists or (2) saw an approaching vehicle, he
    should not have passed the cyclists-- and that's even if they were
    two or three abreast!
    
    He should be charged with unsafe passing, and vehicular manslaughter.
    This is a disgrace to our system of justice for the driver to not be
    charged with any violations!
    
    Does anyone have the names of the other cyclists?  I'd be interested
    in contacting them.  The L.A.W. is always willing to assist in cases
    like this.  I will probably talk to the Stow Police myself (as a Stow
    resident).
                                  --tom

    re: -1
    
    	Last year I went down in an accident very similar to this.
    Three riders, I was in the rear.  A curve in the road ahead
    which was narrow to begin with.  I felt this pick up truck on
    my tail.  The rider in front of me braked and I had to choose
    pulling out into the trucks line (there was a car approaching
    from the other direction) or crash into the bicycle in front
    while trying to move off the road.  As I went down, all I could 
    think of was that this **** was going to run right over me.
    After scrambling off the side of the road (literally dragging
    myself with bicycle attached) the other people in the party
    indicated that the driver of the p/u was like a seen out of
    Peter Fonda's "Easy Rider" only these were bicyclists the guy
    was messing with.  Bottom line is that I think a lot of people
    actually get a kick out of watching you squirm away from their
    big steel rigs thinking that they are in control and no one
    is going to get hurt because they'll back off before they run
    you over.  This is the mentality were dealing with.
    
    	As far as really big rig's (Big Earth Haulers and such),
    why can't we pass legislation to keep them off of the small
    roads?  If a road is too narrow to allow two of these trucks
    to pass without, say 12 feet of side road, then the rig
    shouldn't be allowed on that road.  This would get the size
    of trucks traveling the back roads down in a hurry.  Isn't 
    this a problem that's been solved in Europe?  Seems like all
    of the import trucks are much narrower that the equivalent
    American rig.
    
    						_Jerry
    

    Sorry to hear about your own accident.  That's frightening.
    
    One problem is that the earth that the Big Earth Haulers
    are hauling typically has been excavated off some lot
    down a small country road.  Same for many logging sites.
    (That also means that those roads get pulverized to smithereens
    because they weren't built to handle that weight.)
    
    So what are you going to do?  Trucks in general have gone on
    steroids in the last ten years - they really are much bigger,
    and some don't fit within a county-road sized lane.  Your
    observation about European trucks seems true ... but that's
    because, if those trucks were any wider, they'd have to demolish
    whole village main streets (high streets) to make room for them.
    
    I understand that the 80's were a disaster for truckers (at least
    long-haul ones - don't know about loggers/excavators) ... that is,
    the actual people driving the trucks.  Ironically, the economies 
    of steroid-physique mammoth trucks seems to have bypassed the drivers.  
    So it's the worst of both worlds.
    
    -john

    re .6  By on the white line, I meant as far right as possible.  I've
    ridden 30,000+ miles in East/Central Massachusetts and realize,
    unfortunately, that a painted road is not the norm.  But I do not
    believe that bumpy pavement gives the cyclist a right to ride away
    from the edge of the road when there is two way traffic.  I have
    700x25 115psi tires, so my touche gets it too.
    
    Had the Stow rider stayed to the right, there is plenty of room on
    Boxboro Road for truck, car, and bike.  If anybody should be charged,
    it should be the first rider for putting on his brakes with another
    biker right behind. Regards, Kratz  

    re: .9
    
    > ...the other people in the party indicated that the driver of the p/u was
    > like a seen out of Peter Fonda's "Easy Rider" only these were
    > bicyclists the guy was messing with.
    
    Several years ago I lived in south Floria, and found bicyclist treated
    much worse by motorist than in New England.  A close friend had a
    trailor ball thrown at him by a passing pick-up truck (another reason
    to wear a helmut- but that another note).  Women told me of a car full
    of guys who would drive up along side of them, and reach out and do
    things which would otherwise get them slapped (or arrested).
    

    
    RE: .-2
    
    With due respect for the opinion expressed, I don't believe that
    a bumpy ride is the point in question here.  Now, I can't
    not comment further on the actual conditions, because it's
    been years since I've been on that particular road.  I also
    can't comment on the particular incident, because I didn't
    see it.  I don't know the condition of the road-surface, the
    width of the truck, or the width of the oncoming vehicle.
    
    However ... it may be unfair to suggest that cyclists just
    avoid the edge of the road surface simply to preserve
    their posteriors.  When pieces of the pavement are missing,
    or drainage grates intervene, or sand has washed onto the
    roadway, biking through those conditions may, at best, bend
    a rim, and at worst, cause the bike to lose control and be
    thrown into the path of traffic.  I think we've just seen 
    what can result when a bike is thrown into the path of traffic.
    
    -john

    	Please forgive me, an opinion...
    
    	Re .7
    
    >	By the way, the head of the NC Bicycle Program (hence, a State
    >	official or employee) told our bike club that she follows the
    >	same precept, and recommends it - if it's not safe for the guy
    >	to pass, move out from the curb and don't let him.  Period.
    
    	Please remember, placing oneself directly in the path of
    	traffic, trucks or not, is EXTREMELY dangerous. And at best
    	is cautious advice for experienced cyclists only.
    
    	If the driver of a vehicle is intoxicated, or otherwise impaired,
    	then the obvious could occur. I realize harm could occur no matter
    	where you are on the road, especially if a driver is impaired. But
    	as has been stated, when an accident occurs between car & cyclist,
    	the cyclist is viewed by law enforcement as the problem.
    
    	I firmly believe that cyclists should have full equality on public
    	roads. But unfortunately, a cyclist pedaling in the middle of the
    	road, instead along side of it, would not have ANY chance proving
    	wrongdoing by a motorist, let alone surviving. If I'm to be rear-
    	ended by a motor vehicle, I'm sure it wouldn't matter where I was
    	on the road, the police would say, "he probably wandered in front
    	of the vehicle, have a nice day, we'll take care of the body".
    	Vile injustice, in fact, downright unacceptable in today's world.
    
    	Rest in peace Mark...

    
    RE: .-1  --  You are correct - there is always a not insignificant
    chance that the driver is not in control of him/herself.  In those
    cases one improves one's chances by staying out of harm's way.
    
    You also give an unfortunately accurate protrayal of where officers
    will assume the blame lies (namely, with the cyclist).  Only time may 
    change this.
    
    (By the way, I was once hit from behind by an intoxicated individual,
    while I was riding far to the right.  The authorities dealt quite
    harshly with him.  But, then, that was Germany.  Maybe there's hope
    for an attitude change like that here?)
    
    -john

    Reply #8 relates that from a newspaper article that the cyclists were
    riding in a line, that one cyclist slowed down and the following
    cyclist hit/rammed the slowing one and hence the accident.  It seems
    that we need to consider that maybe the cyclists were riding too 
    close together and did not leave enough space to react to sudden
    change.  It is easy to blame the truck driver from this distance, but
    several points are clear.  The truck front was past the accident, 
    the police did not have any indication/evidence that the truck
    was too close to the cyclist or was trying to crowd them.  This is
    not to say that he couldn't have provided more space.
    
    Riding a bike is a risky business.  Cars and trucks are bigger and more
    powerful.  In addition, our Massachusetts roads are often in bad shape 
    especially at the right side with little or no shoulder.  Riding can
    be very scary and is dangerous.  Most drivers are considerate, but some
    are not.  The road conditions and traffic often determine how I handle
    a situation.  I want motorists to have as much room as possible, I
    really don't want confrontations.  However, I cannot ride over/thu
    potholes and have to plan to go around them, which means moving out
    into traffic.  This requires signalling and checking traffic.  To 
    move out as if you have the right of way is asking for an accident.
    I operate on the premise that the motorist wants to avoid an accident
    because of the hassle and I certainly do because I probably will get
    hurt.  
    
    When I stop at ice cream stands, etc., I go out of my way to be nice
    to people.  A little P.R. by all of us helps create a good impression
    that may help a little when sharing the road gets a bit tight.  I wish 
    we could use those wide shoulders on the 4 lanes.
    
    

    I started this note for two reasons:

    1. I find it very upsetting to have a fellow biker hurt/killed,
    especially on the same road that I often ride.

    2. To encourage everyone to be a little more careful. It doesn't
    really matter whether the truck driver or bike driver were at fault. the
    end result is the same. 

    This stretch of Boxboro road where the accident occurred has new pavement,
    no pot holes. But as with a lot of new paving jobs, there is a 2" lip or 
    drop off from the pavement surface to the the shoulder. It is posible that
    the bike moved off the edge of the pavement to avoid the truck and then 
    fell inwards towards the truck. The lesson here is that even smooth, 
    pothole-free roads can be dangerous.
    
    Just as a side comment, while we'll talking about the down side of
    biking;  Stationary cars can be dangerous also. The other day while
    riding through Maynard the driver's door on a parked car opened
    suddenly in front of me. We missed by inches. But it would have hurt 
    almost as much as if I'd been hit by a moving car. Beware, be careful, 
    be alive.
    
    Ross
    

>    Just as a side comment, while we'll talking about the down side of
>    biking;  Stationary cars can be dangerous also. The other day while
>    riding through Maynard the driver's door on a parked car opened
>    suddenly in front of me. We missed by inches. But it would have hurt 
>    almost as much as if I'd been hit by a moving car. Beware, be careful, 
>    be alive.

    The current law in Mass is that if the cyclist hits a car door
    that has just opened, the cyclist is at fault, and in fact liable
    for damages to the car.

    There is are two bills proposed in the state legislature to change
    this.  I've got the numbers at home if you want to do some lobbying.

    I'm not sure how I feel about these bills.  The real answer is to
    ride some distance away from the parked cars.  A bike car-door
    collision is the result of both persons being careless.

    -Jeff Bell

    I'd like to know what happens if a driver opens his door into a
    moving car!!!!
    MAN THIS SHIT PISSES ME OFF!!!
    sorry about the poor selection of wording but I can't use anything
    stronger!
    
    ERIC

>    I'd like to know what happens if a driver opens his door into a
>    moving car!!!!

    It's the passing car's fault.

    The current situation is probably just the result of the fact
    that by default, bicycles have all the rights and responsibilities
    of other vehicles unless specifically mentioned.

    -Jeff Bell

     I believe that the law on the car issue was changed about 12  years
    ago making it the fault of the person opening the door. I seem to
    remember that from many moons ago....
    
      Chip

>     I believe that the law on the car issue was changed about 12  years
>    ago making it the fault of the person opening the door. I seem to
>    remember that from many moons ago....

    Not according to the latest issue of Boston Cyclist.

    If it's true, the BABC is going to look pretty silly lobbying for
    laws that have already passed.

-Jeff

    There are two car door bills in the statehouse (Mass).

    Bill H4848 is being sposored by Rep. Barbara Gardner of Holiston and
    H4855 is sponsored by Rep. Alvin Thompson of Cambridge and Vincent
    Ciampa of Somerville.  The two bills are identical with the exception
    that H4855 mandates a fine of not less than $25.

    They both instate section 11-1105 of the Uniform Vehicle Code,
    a section that Mass. has not yet adopted.  It reads:

        "No person shall open any door on a motor vehicle
         unless and until it is reasonably safe to do so
         and can be done without interfering with the
         movement of other traffic..."

    Let your representative know your feelings.

    -Jeff Bell

	Now that we all wear helmets, how about helmet mirrors?  I'm 
always amazed at bicyclists that blithely ride in the middle of a narrow 
twisty two lane road designated "no passing."  These people don't realize 
you're behind them, and while you try to avoid getting rear-ended by the 
spastic New England driver behind you, the bicyclist goes on his/her merry way.
I don't ever pass on blind hills, so I tediously wait out the hill, while the
cyclist is convinced I'm trying to run them over.  (But he/she never moves over)

	Riding in New England is especially difficult because of the hilly,
twisty roads and poor shoulders (if they exist).   No matter what "rights" a 
bicylist has, trucks and cars always win out in the weight department.  
Awareness in bicycle riding could be expressed the way my roommate used to talk
about motorcycle riding:

	"Imagine that you're invisible, _and_ everyone hates you"
  


	So, as my parting .02 worth: buy a mirror, check it often, and be the
first to give right-of-way.  (I've ditched my mountain bike on shoulders a
number of times in sticky situations with wobbly gravel trucks.....it isn't 
safe, but neither are the other options you might have.)


Steve

Mirror, yes. Helmet mirror, I'm not so sure. I've use 'em in the past, and
never liked the way you have to kind of swing your head to scan with them,
and the thought of the bending around and wracking your face or eyes in case of
a crash is kind of daunting.

I have one of the Rhode Gear mirrors that mounts on the brake mount on the left
side of the handbar, and like it *much* better than helmet-mounted mirrors.

Of course, if I didn't have it, I wouldn't have known there was a car behind
me on May 27th, so I might not have pulled over to let him pass (and then 
hit sand and smashed myself up). Can ignorance be bliss?

I don't think so. I'd rather know what's coming up on me.

(On only one crutch now; progress.)

    re -.1:
    
    Paul, I hate to disagree with a man on a crutch, but...
    
    I have one of the helmet-mounted mirrors.  It drove me NUTS for about 2
    days, and took about a week to get used to.  But, now I can adjust the
    mirror to see behind me without having to look around at all, and a
    slight side-to-side movement gives me a scan of a wide area behind me.
    
    I find it invaluable when riding along the shoulder to know where the
    cars are, and how many.  However, I haven't had one of the handlebar
    mounted mirrors, but it seems like looking down to see through the
    mirror would be a bigger problem than swinging your head to scan with a
    helmet mounted mirror.

         I also use a mirror mounted on the handle bar. It works
         well for me. I find it especially useful when I am pulling
         my trailer full of kids. It also helps to keep track of
         where my wife is. I haven't used the helmet kind for years.
         I honestly don't remember how it worked....

         Anyway I have to agree with the statement that mirrors can
         be a big help with cars. I hate to ride bikes without them.

         JC

    All this discussion of accidents has focused on accidents
    where a motor vehicle is passing a bicycle.

    This type of accident is not the most common.  The majority
    of bike-car accidents involve one of the vehicle making a turn.
    Intersections are much more dangerous than straight roads.

    Perhaps we worry so much about this just because it's a situation
    where the cyclist has less control over the situation.

    The practice of "taking a lane when you need it" is much more
    effective at preventing accidents in intersections than on the
    straight and narrow.

    -Jeff Bell

    
    "Taking a lane...."

    I had the unpleasant opportunity to be driving my car into Amherst MA.
    this last Sunday (son was in State soccer tournament) when a MS
    bike-a-thon was using the same road (Rt 9, 116). 

    It was a major down hill. The bikes were going faster than my car 35-40
    MPH. They were riding 3-5 bikes side by side. Some were even in the
    left lane. There were solid bikers for over a mile. Most of them made
    no effort to move over. If I slowed up there was a chance of being hit
    from behind. If I passed them there was chance of hitting an oncoming
    car or one of the other bikers. 

    I bike a lot and consider myself sensitive to a biker's point of view.
    But after being caught in this pack for 10-15 minutes I was ready to
    plow a few off the road.

    I don't think blocking a lane is an effective way to coexist with
    motorized traffic. Car and truck drivers aren't gonig to understand
    anything accept that the the biker is in the way. (Especially drivers
    who don't care for bike riding in the first place.

Ross

    I think that, at 35-40 mph on that road it is not safe to pass anyone,
    including a single bicycle.You would not be allowed to pass a car going
    35-40 there, why should you expect to pass a bike?
    
    ed

>    "Taking a lane...."

    I didn't mean "Take a lane whenever you can."
    I meant "Take a lane when you need to."

    Unfortunately, the distinction isn't always obvious
    from the seat of the car behind me.

    Suppose I'm coming up to an intersection where there is a
    cross street that has a stop sign.  A car is pulling up to the
    stop sign, but hasn't looked at me yet.  I have a choice of
    either taking my place in the lane, or hugging the parked
    cars.  The first choice gives me much better visibilty
    and a lot more options if the car driver doesn't see me.
    In the second case, I would just "pop" into the intersection
    as I entered it.  I prefer the first.

    Another scenario is that I'm going up a narrow road curves to the
    right and goes uphill and there isn't enough room for two cars
    and a bike.  If there are oncoming cars, I'll move into the middle
    of my lane.  Cars behind me couldn't pass anyways, but I'd rather
    that they not even trie.  As soon as I see that there's a break
    in the oncoming I'll wave them around.

    I don't see that taking a lane in these cases would qualify
    as antisocial behavior.

    If there is room for a car to pass me safely, I'll gladly
    slide over.  If I'm going to be blocking traffic for more than
    a minute or two, I'd even get off the road.  Anything else would
    be impolite.

    -Jeff Bell

And let's not forget rotaries ...

Getting thru them without taking a lane is almost impossible.
		
				Ken

    When I ride my bike to the cape i always watch out for the other
    guy just like I do when I drive my car.
    When I drive my car I will either slow down untill i can safely
    pass him/her.
    A car/truck should always give enough room, so if you fall there
    should be enough room for the car/truck will go by you and not
    hit or KILL you.
    This should have never happened, the truck driver was fully at
    fault.
    
    DAVE

>                    <<< Note 1591.34 by SLUGER::DMITCHELL >>>
>                           -< TRUCK DRIVER AT FAULT >-

 >    A car/truck should always give enough room, so if you fall there
 >   should be enough room for the car/truck will go by you and not
 >   hit or KILL you.
  

I agree. Advanced drivers in the UK are taught to allow 12 feet of space
when overtaking a cyclist. 6 feet for the bike, 6 for the cyclist, if
they should topple over.

Sometimes this is not practicable, ie on narrow country lanes. Equally,
truck drivers need to keep up their momentum, and this should be allowed
for too. If you hear a truck coming and there's traffic coming the other
way, then give him as much room as you can to pass. I don't like holding
up a line of traffic behind me at all. It's better to give a little
roadspace to let people pass than to be knocked down and killed, even
though you're in the right.

Craig

(advanced driver and cyclist)

>>I agree. Advanced drivers in the UK are taught to allow 12 feet of space
>>when overtaking a cyclist. 6 feet for the bike, 6 for the cyclist, if
>>they should topple over.

    	Just like the RAAM bumper sticker say's "Allow adequate space
    when passing cyclists" (Both motor and bicycle).  With a law like
    this on the books we wouldn't have to put up with Macho Manny The
    Mad Mack Masher that likes to squeeze by you at 60 mph just to watch 
    you eat the dust that he threw up in his wake, despite the fact
    that the entire roadway was empty except for you and him.
    
    	Mind you, this guy is in the minority, and most truckers,
    especially the long haulers, are curteous, but one thing that
    all truckers respect is the law (if they want to keep their
    livelyhood) and this kind of legislation , I think, would
    be a real plus for everyone.
    						_Jerry

    re. poor riding in an MS Bike-a-thon:   I'm sorry to say that I've
    found this typical of the charity rides. The level of riding skill
    and courtesy is way below that found in a good club, like NVP or GSW.
    This is the main reason that I avoid these events.
    	It was so nice to ride with almost exclusively NVP people on one
    of the GEAR-Up rides a few weeks ago. Good signals, good warnings, good
    lane discipline (singling up in traffic), etc.  - Chris 

     One thing that I've found which I believe is extremely important
    is as long as the driver understands the intent of the cyclist and
    isn't surprised by moves, they are almost always willing to help
    you out. I frequently have been allowed to go through even when 
    I don't have the right of way.
    
     Drivers, when startled, scared or are guessing generally will react
    with anger. If they know what you're doing, they're a pretty courteous
    bunch (barring the ever present exceptions, of course).
    
      Chip

Why hasn't the truck driver been cited?

If the situation had been slightly different, say with two greensman
on riding mowers or two farmers on tractors, the public hue and cry
would be deafening.  But because expendable cyclists are involved
(they don't HAVE to ride those things, do they?) nobody cares, or
else is willing to give the poor truck driver the benefit of the
doubt.  Let's not forget that someone died here.  It seems to me
that the burden of proof lies with the truck driver to show that
he was riding with every consideration for the safety of the others
who were legally and properly using the thoroughfare.

I'm not saying that the truck driver should get the electric chair,
but the fact that he hasn't been cited for reckless endangerment
(at a minimum!) sets a terrible and terrifying precedent.  Hey,
the last ten years may have been tough for truck drivers, but this
year has been pretty hard on at least one now-deceased cyclist.

Are the local cycling organizations aware of this accident?  Any
news to report?

My condolences to the cyclist's family and friends.

-David Buffo

>     Let's not forget that someone died here.  It seems to me
>that the burden of proof lies with the truck driver to show that
>he was riding with every consideration for the safety of the others
>who were legally and properly using the thoroughfare.

Not to defend the truck driver unnecessarily, and being a cyclist myself 
(albeit on hiatus), but the above sounds awfully like "guilty until proven
innocent". Shouldn't the assumption be the other way around, and the burden
be to prove that anybody about to be accused of negligence was in fact 
negligent?

Admittedly, it doesn't always work that way; there's the default assumption in
many cases that when two cars collide, the car with damage further forward is
de facto at fault. And I'm all for safer trucks and for throwing the book at
unsafe drivers. But it's still "innocent until proven guilty". (The proof could
well be testimony of witnesses, such as other cyclists, of course.)

    I don't usually read this file, not being a bicyclist, but Mark
    was a friend of ours.  He worked with my husband, and they would
    go out running or riding at noon.  My husband was out of town the
    day of the tragedy.  Although incidents that occur in split seconds
    are never easy to piece together entirely, maybe I can fill in a
    little.
   
    Mark, John, and Jim went out riding together.  As they rode up the
    hill, Jim fell behind.  Mark and John (who were very good friends)
    were riding down the other side of the hill when a heavy truck
    approached.  Mark and John moved over; John was in front.  It seemed
    tight and John was feeling worried.  (No one knows what Mark was
    feeling at that moment.  Did he realize how close the truck was?)
    Then an oncoming car appeared.  John realized there would not be
    room and headed off the road into the ditch.  Mark was behind him,
    so I don't think anyone knows for certain what happened.  Did he
    hit John's bike?  Did the truck knock him over?  What they do know
    is that he was crushed by the rear wheels of the truck; that John
    was inches away and is lucky to be alive; and that Mark's body was 
    16" from the edge of the road.  
    
    Mark was an environmental engineer, who cared about and worked for
    and knew a lot about our environment.  He was a really warm, caring,
    and good humored guy.  He was loved and is missed by a great many.
    He is survived by both parents and a sister.