A bicycle/vehicle collision occurred this morning at 7:55 AM on the corner of N. 40th and Stone Way N., according to Terrie Johnston of the Seattle Police Department. We only know a few details at the moment. The 911 report lists the accident as “Medic Response, 6 per rule” which means that 6 fire department personnel were sent to treat the patient. We’ll keep you posted as soon as we learn more.
Thank you, Sue, for letting us know.
Discover more from Wallyhood
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I was on the 16 southbound on Stone and the bus driver stopped at the red light and saw the whole thing happen.
Overheard from another witness who was helping the cyclist until paramedics arrived that she was heading southbound on Stone and tried to brake but speed/gravity and wet pavement caused her to skid into the intersection where she was struck by a car heading east on 40th (so basically she ran the red light). She was apparently conscious and coherent, talking to good samartian witnesses and trying to comfort the distraught driver that hit her. One of the witnesses/passersby was some sort of PT or something and made sure all her limbs were mobile/not broken.
Traffic was generally smart until the cops actually arrived to direct it around the firetruck/ambulance in the middle of the intersection and that’s when people started driving like idiots again. Saw a different cyclist run the same red while the injured woman was being treated. Only he did it blatantly.
surely a cyclist can’t be at fault!
heard the sirens and was wondering what had happened. by the time I left (before 9) it was all clear.
@GCP–From the account you gave, it could also have been the car that ran the red light. How can you know that the cyclist ran the red light? Because you saw a *different* cyclist run the light *later*? I’m sure you will see cars run that light (or others) from time to time, also. Not saying the bike rider wasn’t at fault either, just that we can’t assume we know who was running the light.
Also, the headline should probably read “collision” instead of “accident”. In all likelyhood, someone (the driver or the bike rider) was at fault.
I was a driver involved in a bicycle collision and I can tell you that the experience will shake you to the core. I didn’t sleep for days worrying about the cyclist (they took him away in an ambulance and I had no idea the extent of injuries for weeks) and I refused to drive for weeks. The cyclist was at fault but, thankfully, was ok in the end. My insurance company had to wait for the police report to process (which took a month) in order to even get the cyclists name for an interview or to determine whether they needed to pay any claims based on fault. The police would not allow me to go near him or exchange information. They said I would have to wait for the report. Needless to say, it took a long time for me to be comfortable driving in Seattle again.
I get that bicycling is good for you and good for the environment. However, when a bicyclist yells at me or flips me off when THEY are at fault it’s infuriating. They are supposed to follow traffic rules but it seems that they only follow the rules that are most convenient for them. I hope that any cyclist who reads this will a.) review the damn traffic laws and b.) obey them from now on. It may save their lives.
@Eric, noted.
Um, the word “collision” doesn’t imply fault any more than “accident” does, and “fault” is not an element of either word’s definition.
Otherwise there’d be a lot of anxious, guilty particles in a Super Collider, no? But then again, they are looking for a “God particle” so I could be wrong about that. It would depend on whether the God particle had the other particles organized or not I suppose.
@Eric – I was at the bus stop in front of the 7-11 waiting. It was most definately the cyclist that ran the red light NOT the driver.
Isn’t there a red-light camera at that intersection? That should help.
“They are supposed to follow traffic rules but it seems that they only follow the rules that are most convenient for them. ”
I drive and bike every day. Sometimes on a bike you have to “break” the rules. Example you stop at the light but it will not change since you did not hit the right part of the pavement and the marker is worn off. You have to cross on the wrong side of the road to hit the pedestrian button. Also I go on the sidewalk at Montlake to cross the bridge, Car drivers think I am avoiding the light. Sometimes I make an early (?illegal) left turn to avoid being sandwiched in an intersection by cars on either side (read high risk of death). And on and on. While I agree with the statement bikes should avoid always obey the rules of the road, a lot of cars don’t give bikes the time of day or right of way.
I find it a little sad how quickly every incident between a cyclist and a vehicle can turn into a discussion of fault and the respective failings of drivers or cyclists. If you actually read GCP’s thorough (not to mention apparently un-biased) description of the incident, you would realize that the cyclist did in fact run the red light (the witness was on a bus stopped at the same red light) but that the cyclist clearly tried NOT to run the red light (she skidded into the intersection while trying to stop) and that the cyclist felt guilty about it (trying to comfort the distraught driver). What happened sounds like an unfortunate incident between imperfect human beings. Perhaps next time read this as simply a human story about our neighbors rather than viewing every incident like this as an opportunity to re-hash the same old arguments in the endless struggle of drivers v. cyclists?
Well said Jared.
To chime in here the way a helpful attorney did awhile back about burglary vs robbery (which I still can’t keep straight):
@Eric is correct regarding terms.
The technical term in transportation engineering is “collision” or “crash”, which is agnostic regarding fault (allowing that someone might be at fault, but not assigning blame), as opposed to the now out-dated in transportation engineering circles “accident”, which implies no one is at fault. Some collisions are accidents – they are situations where no one was at fault, but most collisions do include at least one party who can carry some blame for the outcome.
There is a good explanation here:
http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/4996/safety-is-no-accident-says-carr/
But of course the official verdict is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision#Terminology
Also, while it sounds like the bicyclist ran a red light here, perhaps at least somewhat unintentionally, this crash serves as a good reminder that even when we are following the rules it is our obligation to drive defensively. Just because a light is green doesn’t guarantee the intersection is safe to cross. In the ideal situation, there would be enough cushion in the system via defense driving that the sorts of unintentional behaviors the bicyclist described would not result in a crash.
When the cyclist makes an error in judgment the cyclist gets injured. When the driver makes an error in judgment the cyclist gets injured. The vast majority of cyclists own and drive cars. We can all do better.
I find most drivers are careful and respectful of cyclists most of the time. Some drivers are jerks, some cyclists are jerks.
I was injured seriously in a tangle with a car. The driver was negligent, but she was a good person, made a mistake that day and I paid the price. It had a negative emotional impact on her as well.
I have a lot of tolerance for most people, but not those who can only rant from their own perspective as a driver or a cyclist.
What was refreshing about this story was that both driver and the cyclist were normal people who reacted appropriately.
Unfortunately, I think most bike riders (and most drivers, for that matter) overestimate their ability to stop quickly, particularly in less-than-ideal conditions. Bikes have very small contact patches, which reduces rolling resistance, but makes quick stops from high-speed impossible.
One somewhat comforting note is that, while Seattle’s bike-riding (as measured by # of people who get to work primarily by bike) is up 55% between 2007 and 2011, the # of crashes has remained at ~375 per year. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017544092_bikemap19m.html
I think this is a good indication that some of the new bike lanes, road-diets, sharrows, etc. are working to make new riders less fearful of the streets, and the increase in bike traffic is probably causing drivers to look for bikes where they might not have 5 years ago.
Stone Way, in particular, has seen a 35% increase in bike-traffic, since the Road Diet in ’07-’08. However, collisions between cars & cars and cars & bikes are down 14%, and car/pedestrian collisions are down 80%. All this with only a 6% reduction in car capacity.
http://publicola.com/2010/05/24/study-shows-stone-way-road-diet-improved-traffic-safety/
As a pedestrian, cyclist, and driver, I hope we continue the design philosophy for road safety that considers all users and not try to make mini-interstates so people can “safely” check their email while driving…
Jared put it very well.
Gosh, All this hatred towards bike\cars. I thought this area was a hate free zone?