A bicyclist was killed Saturday as his bike veered off a road and fell down a ravine, according to authorities.
The apparent accident occurred shortly before 9 a.m. near the intersection of Stunt Road and Mulholland Highway in the Santa Monica Mountains south of Calabasas, California Highway Patrol Officer Ed Jacobs said.
"Our paramedics responded to the scene at 8:58 a.m.,'' said a L.A. County Fire Department dispatcher.
"The man's bike went off the road and down a ravine,'' the fire department dispatcher said. ''He died at the scene.''
The victim's identity was withheld pending notification of next of kin. He was in his 40s, according to the LA Times.
The cause of the crash remains under investigation by the CHP, Jacobs
said.
http://jokeofthedayblog.blogspot.com
Be safe and share the road folks. Unless you're on the same road as Kelly. Then I'd look for an alternate route.
In this case, no car was involved (presumably), but almost every day I see near-accidents caused by the Mulholland not being set up for bicyclists. This is a fairly small curvy country road, with a one-way single lane in each direction. In most places, there's no shoulder at all, and not even a rail to stop bikes and cars from dropping into ravines, as happened in this case. The speed limit is anywhere between 35-55 mph, so as a result, many cars can't slow down on time to avoid hitting the bicyclists in their lane and the car almost always is forced to swerve onto the opposing traffic lane where they are in danger of a head-on collision. The bicyclists are not only endangering themselves, but the occupants of the cars who need to swerve to avoid hitting the bikes. It really is time for the County and the City to either add a bike lane, or close Mulholland to bikes. I'm not sure how many more people need to die before that's understood.
But there are blind turns on Mulholland where a car can't see what's coming up around the bend. The motorist has no idea if there is a group of cyclists in middle of the lane. And often enough, there are cyclists, and the cars swerve onto the oncoming traffic lane and hope to God that they can get back into their own lane before being demolished. Back to your point about not being to outlaw bikes. Yes, you may be correct. But, slow-moving vehicles and bikes in particular aren't always allowed on the road. For example, bikes are not allowed on Freeways. Mulholland Hwy is, by definition, a highway. I'm not an expert on the exact laws, but it stands to reason that a Highway would have more restrictions than a typical neighborhood street. As a final thought, check out this article from the Biking in LA Blog: http://bikinginla.wordpress.com/2012/07/14/breaking-news-chp-reports-yet-another-socal-cyclist-killed-in-solo-fall-on-mulholland-highway/ Quote: "And it’s the 10th cycling death in just the last nine days, as the horrible, tragic string of recent cycling fatalities continues for yet another day." You can draw your own conclusions...
So, Mulholland may be a highway, but "highway" is a throwaway term. I think "highway" means that it connects two towns. In the way that "boulevard" means a road is not interrupted by STOP signs (or something like that). Think of San Vicente or Ventura Blvds. Anyway, such tags at the end of street names are more poetic than anything else. They have no legal significance regarding access. In case you're wondering, local municipalities are not allowed to restrict cycling either. One often hears "Malibu should ban cyclists..." When in fact state law prohibits this. Only the state can make rules for the road. This is a painful reality for many to swallow - the idea that they do not have a right to travel rapidly but, merely, to travel. The only solution, if some motorists can't slow down, is to make wider roads with separate bicycle facilities so there is no conflict.
The minimum speed law, CVC 22400, cannot be used to ban slow traffic from a road. Maybe you should try reading it instead of pretending to know what it says. It makes no provision for removing slow traffic from the road. It does contain exceptions for grade, safety and compliance with the law. The grade exception effectively exempts bicyclists from the minimum speed requirement because bicyclists cannot be required to travel at a speed greater than they can reasonably sustain and the grade of most roads prevents most bicyclists from maintaining applicable speed most of the time. Have you ever driven up grapevine as the big trucks got 10mph in a 65mph (55mph for trucks) zone? Did you notice any of those trucks getting pulled over. That's because they can't go any faster due to the grade. Unfortunately, people like you like to make up imaginary laws to rationalize you delusion that the road exists for your convenience. The roads exist for everyone to travel; not just you. Bicyclists have a right to the road. It's California state law, CVC 21200(a). If you can't avoid running into the back of slow traffic, then you shouldn't be driving.
I often find myself driving those beautiful, winding roads in the Santa Monica mountains, and know many of them quite well. Yet, even as a slow-and-safe driver, familiar with the twists and turns of those roads, I am *terrified* that some sad day, I'll come around a blind turn, and have one or more cyclists in my path, and not be able to avoid them safely, *even though* I am going very slowly around that blind turn. Even with the cyclists being vigilant, and listening carefully for traffic coming up behind them, there are still *many* places in the road where they simply have NO room to pull over whatsoever. I understand that cyclists take this risk knowingly, and are doing their best to stay safe, but it just seems so dangerous. Add to the mix the motorcyclists who use those same roads at great speeds; the tourists; the commuters; the construction trucks; the occasional wildlife...it all makes for some pretty dangerous conditions. I wish I had a suggestion to make it a safe, happy place for all to share, but I'm at a loss. There isn't room for a consistent bikelane on Mulholland, barring a major widening project, is there?
You're making excuses. You're trying to pretend that you're not but you are.
Keep in mind also that, as a slow driver, I am constantly at risk of being rear-ended myself by cars behind me coming around that same blind turn. And in case you're wondering: I think my pristine driving record for 20+ years speaks to the fact that I'm a cautious, attentive driver. I am very aware of the cyclists on those roads, and when I talk to newbs about the area, I let them know to drive with care. So I'm not some speed-demon lousy driver.
Again, I'm not arguing that cyclists should be restricted at all. I offer no solutions, just my observations as a driver who wants everyone to be safe.
Rear end collisions are caused by driving too fast or following too close in conjunction with hard braking or sudden lane changes or occasionally from going too fast into a space in which the driver cannot see. If you go too fast into a space which you cannot see then you are in violation of the basic speed law, CVC 22350. It is not reasonable or prudent to go so fast that you cannot stop within the distance that you can see. That distance will vary with the weight of the vehicle and traction. It's up to you to know your vehicle and the road conditions. I've done plenty of driving on winding mountain roads (I used to ski a lot) and I have encountered disabled vehicles more than once. I wasn't even close to hitting them. Even when I was young and drove aggressively I had enough sense to not go around blind curves fast. My driver's education teacher made the part about disabled vehicles around blind curves very, very clear and I never forgot it. You're reaching for an excuse. You are not dealing in reality.
My point was that by going well below the posted speed limit (as I often do on those blind turns), there is a very real risk that I'll get rear-ended by *someone else* (who is going the posted limit) coming up behind me on that blind curve. Unless the speed limit is dropped to, say 5 mph on some of those curves, it's just a reality of that road, and those drivers. Your experience on those ski roads may not translate to the specific conditions in the Santa Monica mountains. I've driven many ski-area roads myself, so I know a bit about those conditions. Please drop the snarky tone re: "reality". Unless you are in the driver seat on the roads in question, you aren't observing the reality those of us who frequent those roads are seeing. Your dismissive tone is not conducive to productive discourse, and is against the terms of this site. Cool it.
On a winding mountain road, the speed limit might be 35mph to 45mph. If you are going 25mph and the over taking driver is going 35mph, the speed differential is 10mph. To avoid a collision they don't have to slow from 35mph to 0mph. They only have to slow to 25mph, which is pretty easy. The same principle works with 45mph, though obviously they have to reduce speed by 20mph instead of 10mph. It's still easy. Furthermore, they will likely have seen you before you went around that corner so they will be expecting you to be there. They've been catching up to you for a while at 10-20mph. You don't appear out of nowhere.
The person who rear-ends you, when you are driving slower then the posted speed limit, is guilty of violating the ACTUAL speed limit which is the speed at which they would not have struck you (or even come close, really). That is California's "Basic Speed Law" under its vehicle code section 22350. That is the speed limit in effect. It reads: "No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property." Keep in mind that "traffic" includes bicycle riders and other "non-car" vehicles and animals.