near the location where
Bernick was hit.
(Photos © Dan Liu)
Last night, BikePortland news intern Dan Liu and I visited the scene of the collision that killed Cary Bernick on Monday evening.
We timed our arrival to match that of the crash itself, shortly after 5pm. There wasn’t a ton of traffic. Biking up and down the Halsey/Weidler couplet (that’s wonk-speak for two, one-way streets) doesn’t feel exactly safe — you have to look sharp — but it also isn’t the terrifying freeway on-off ramp I expected.
Dan and I stood for a while looking at the crash scene. It had rained heavily all day and dried out several hours beforehand. Someone had tied a bouquet of flowers to a nearby street sign with a yellow ribbon, and another bouquet was laid carefully on the sidewalk. We later learned that the flowers were placed by Bernick’s wife, brother, and his brother’s girlfriend. Shortly after we left, a ghost bike was chained to the same spot.
There were a few shattered bits of mirror in the street — from a small, convex mirror, Dan pointed out. A six inch length of yellow caution tape remained next to the curb. That was about it.
We spoke with Norma Sherer, who works at Gateway Florist and Espresso. The collision occurred directly in front of the shop.
Sherer heard a crash, she said, not loud enough to be two cars. Then she saw people running towards the street, and looked out the window and saw Bernick lying in the road. She ran outside, but quickly realized that her first aid training would not be of use. She stood in the street directing traffic until the Fire Department arrived. She pointed out the exact place Bernick lay — mid block, far from the intersection, near her shop’s yellow sandwichboard — and where truck that struck him had ended up pulled over on 106th, just south of the intersection, after making a left turn. The truck appeared to have no body damage, she said — the mirror seemed to have been the point of impact.
Sherer was clearly shaken by what she had seen. She told us she sees people ride past on bikes all day, some with traffic, some against the flow, and some on the sidewalk. She couldn’t believe that the person driving the truck that collided with Bernick couldn’t have seen him since it seemed clear that he was right in the center of the road. She thinks a lot more education is needed to teach people to drive safely when bikes are in the transportation mix. “All these bike lanes and stuff are new,” she said. “It’s hard to know the rules. And bikes are hard to see.”
Sherer was clearly shaken by what she had seen. She told us she sees people ride past on bikes all day, some with traffic, some against the flow, and some on the sidewalk.
Dan went back to the street to take photos and I walked over to The Outer Rim, a bike shop that opened a week ago in the same parking lot as the florist. The shop is owned by Nadine Jones. Her husband, Charlie Jones, had heard the crash and gone outside to investigate.
Charlie flies a trauma helicopter for a living and has “seen a lot of stuff like this.” His analysis: Bernick collided with the truck’s mirror and died nearly instantly from a massive skull fracture sustained upon hitting the pavement.
“In this area, you have a large indigent population,” he said, “This is kind of a transient area…this is their flyway up through here. They zip across the road, they take chances. Most don’t have helmets.”
Jones’ theory is that Bernick had probably been riding north on 106th and cut fast across Weidler without stopping or looking. When I got outside Dan and I went and stared at the scene for a while longer. Dan had developed a similar theory — that Bernick had been attempting to cross Weidler on a diagonal, from 106th headed to the entrance of a midblock apartment building on the north side of the street and a bit to the east. He also could have been proceeding in a straight line, hugging the curb on the south side of the street (the opposite side as the bike lane) going the wrong way, and been struck by the truck as its driver bore left to turn left, which we saw many people doing as we stood there.
Neither Sherer nor Jones see this as a particularly dangerous area for traffic, though both highlighted the need for caution.
It’s still unclear exactly what happened, and what Dan and I learned last night is hardly conclusive. We have a call in to the Traffic Investigations Unit at the Portland Police Bureau Traffic Division, but we have yet to hear back. This incident raises many questions spanning far beyond the matter of legal fault. We’ll work to address some of those in the coming days.
She couldn’t believe that the person driving the truck that collided with Bernick couldn’t have seen him since it seemed clear that he was right in the center of the road.
My point (in previous posts) exactly.
so it just now hit me where this intersection is and i remembered horrifying trips i’ve had out that direction. heading out to gateway cycles via halsey one summer during rush hour i was subject to repeated honking and right hooks, though i was travelling in the bike lane. travelling on weidler there in a car, someone came screaming out of an apartment complex parking lot in their land yacht of a car, without looking, hesitating, nothing, forcing the driver of the car i was in to swerve across lanes to avoid this person hitting us. it’s that paradigm shift east of 82nd where you’re entering the old portland suburbs. it’s very bizarre.
She couldn’t believe that the person driving the truck that collided with Bernick couldn’t have seen him since it seemed clear that he was right in the center of the road.
My point (in previous posts) exactly.
And another thing– did anybody actually witness Bernick riding the wrong way, or is this all supposition?
Rixtir, I have that question too, and have been thinking about the Kyle Egertson case. Since the police haven’t gotten back to us yet all we know is what we read in the Oregonian — that a witness saw Bernick riding against traffic.
so now i’m really curious. how is the witness defining “against traffic”? did they mean using a cross street to get across weidler?
also, in response to another persons comment when this story hit, my grandpa always told me ride against traffic so you can see what’s coming. there’s a good amount of disinformation in the generation gap. add in being someone with an income most likely reliant on cans as a source of income, they probably don’t own a computer with internet and therefore have no consistent access to information on traffic laws. for all they knew (and for all i knew when i first started cycling around portland) bikes are exempt from the laws of cars.
i would assume any sane human will be shook up after killing another person, but why was this driver so readily let off the hook on the basis of one witness and their own statement. what type of a truck was it? some of those things sit so high off the road making visibility over the front so bad i don’t understand why they’re legal! it essentially has a huge, child-sized blind spot.
then again there’s the drivers in outer northeast that have such pure hatred for cyclists they’ll TRY to run you off the road, they’re usually the ones driving big trucks.
Well, if the driver turned left onto the street as the article states, then the driver probably only checked to his right for traffic. If Cary was riding the wrong way, the driver would have never looked in his direction at all and driven right into him. I’ve nearly been hit too many times to count as a pedestrian when drivers do exactly this and I am running on the sidewalk.
Drivers: Please look BOTH ways before pulling out of a driveway or side street.
Chad,
Assuming for the sake of argument that the driver looked right, but not left, then he also bears some responsibility for this collision.
I think until we have a clear picture of exactly what happened– who witnessed what, and what the both the cyclist and the driver did and did not do, it’s premature to place the blame for this collision on the cyclist.
Well, if the driver turned left onto the street as the article states, then the driver probably only checked to his right for traffic…I’ve nearly been hit too many times to count as a pedestrian when drivers do exactly this…
Sounds very plausible, and I can’t tell you how many times I’ve almost been hit by drivers turning left while looking right (or visa versa).
It’s a good idea to look both ways on one-way streets, no matter what your mode of transportation. I’ve nearly gotten tagged as a ped downtown by wrong way drivers.
Jonathan, thanks for giving this coverage.
Wait, question:
If the truck is traveling westbound on Weidler and is making a left turn on 106th, why would they look right? The truck was not crossing Weidler on 106th, was it?
It looks like the cyclist was traveling eastbound in the westbound lanes, if I’m matching the report with the picture here.
Those are my thoughts as well Kt, #10.
Having grown up in Portland and now living in the Midwest. Here it is more common to see cyclist riding against traffic than with.
I agree with #5, their is a generational and poor social economical level myth about riding against traffic. Another reason to keep Safe Routes to School program running and teach bicycle riding education in school.
Why should the cyclist be immediately off the hook? Why is there an implication that because this driver was driving a truck that he tries to run down cyclists on purpose? I am a little disturbed at the clear attitude shown by some people that the truck driver had to be doing something wrong. While it is hard for many of you to believe that someone as wonderful as a cyclist could do something wrong, as most things point to the cyclist being at fault, but regardless, we need to wait for all of the facts.
Once we as a group start making assumptions, some of which are completely illogical, many of which contradict each other and most of which seemed biased, we start losing our credibility. Once we say stupid things, nobody will listen to us – even when we say something smart.
Here are some things I gleaned from multiple media reports (possibly not entirely accurate media reports) that address some of assumptions made here and which should be considered before additional assumptions are made.
• There were multiple witnesses who saw the cyclist riding against traffic and pull into the traffic lane in front of the truck
• The truck was an older Ford truck – not high off the ground at all.
• Generational or not. Low socio-economic level or not. Riding against traffic is against the law and dangerous. Ignorance is NOT a valid reason for disobeying the law.
• It is my understanding that the truck only pulled onto 106th after hitting the cyclist, not as part of hitting the cyclist. If you look at the graphic, you will see that the accident occurred before 106th, but that is all irrelevant, as the cyclist was coming towards the truck. So looking right or left would actually be looking away from the cyclist.
I am a usually proud bicyclist who once again, much to my dismay, finds myself in the position of trying to defend the comments (frequently asinine) found here, to my non-cyclist friends. So please, just try to look at the facts you do know (there are not many) and make logical comments based on those. You know the old saying about assumptions? Even if your assumptions are masked as educated guesses or questions, it still applies.
I ride all over, but being in the mix with autos is just a mess. lately its getting
worse on the road.. be safe!
RIP bike friend!
Joe
I am amazed at how biased you are, Elly Blue. Reading this story is like watching Fox News. I am a cyclist, bike commuter, Cross Crusader, etc. and I constantly see cyclists doing exceedingly stupid and unsafe things on bikes. And I constantly see drivers doing exceedingly stupid and unsafe things in cars. But are you really looking for a way to put the blame onto the driver for hitting a cyclist when he was RIDING THE WRONG WAY ON A ONE WAY STREET IN THE MIDDLE OF A LANE OF TRAFFIC? This is a sad and tragic story, no doubt, but come on. Next time you visit the crash site you should bring Ann Coulter along.
KimJSCP, #13:
Why should the cyclist be immediately off the hook? Why is there an implication that because this driver was driving a truck that he tries to run down cyclists on purpose? I am a little disturbed at the clear attitude shown by some people that the truck driver had to be doing something wrong. While it is hard for many of you to believe that someone as wonderful as a cyclist could do something wrong, as most things point to the cyclist being at fault, but regardless, we need to wait for all of the facts.
Isn’t that what I said above, that we need to wait for all of the facts?
Conversely, have you seen any comments that “immediately let the cyclist off the hook” or that the “driver tried to run the cyclist down on purpose”?
It’s already been alleged that the cyclist was not following the rules of the road (and I have yet to read or see anything in which witnesses said that they saw the what happened, although I will concede it’s possible that I missed a report). What I am asking is whether or not the truck driver was following the rules of the road. Given that a life was lost, I think that’s a reasonable question to ask.
Artie, thanks for the comment. Where do you read that I’m “trying to blame the driver”? As I say throughout the story, no assumptions about legal fault can be made at this time, and the issues go beyond blame regardless of what’s found.
Artie, #15:
But are you really looking for a way to put the blame onto the driver for hitting a cyclist when he was RIDING THE WRONG WAY ON A ONE WAY STREET IN THE MIDDLE OF A LANE OF TRAFFIC?
If the cyclist was in the middle of a lane of traffic, and if the driver was following the rules of the road, how is it that the driver ended up hitting the cyclist– even if the cyclist was going the wrong way?
Actually Ristir, I wasn’t referring to your post and thought yours was by far the sanest, but subsequent posters hadn’t seemed to have paid attention. But as far as your comment “Conversely, have you seen any comments that “immediately let the cyclist off the hook” or that the “driver tried to run the cyclist down on purpose”?”, yes I did and if you read all of the comments you will see them the questions about why are we letting the DRIVER off the hook and most disturbingly where Christopher Lee said in #5 “there’s the drivers in outer northeast that have such pure hatred for cyclists they’ll TRY to run you off the road, they’re usually the ones driving big trucks.”
Once gain, I totally agree with your original post. However regarding #18 – then how do any head-on collisions happen if one drive is obeying the rules of the road? There are many ways and any of them could have applied in this situation. However, as I said before, I read where it was witnessed that the cyclist started on the side of the rode and rode into the traffic lane, somewhere in front of the truck.
Kim, thank you for your comment, I agree entirely.
For me, BikePortland has become laughable, largely because of the commenters, but also because of Elly Blue’s writing style and sometimes even the great Mr. Maus (Who I normally have great respect for).
Those who claim bias on the part of other sources of the media should take a look at how this conversation has been going in the stories related to this incident.
How much investigation was given on the part of bikeportland to how the Sparling Tragedy could have been avoided if her actions had been different? (I know she wasn’t at fault, but think about it.)
Pot? Meet Kettle.
If you’re talking about head-on collisions between two automobiles, they usually seem to happen in such a way that one automobile veers into the path of another automobile so suddenly that the driver who is in the proper lane has no time to react.
I can envision at least one scenario in this collision where the cyclist rode into the lane before the driver had time to react. But other scenarios are possible too. For example, perhaps the driver wasn’t watching the lane ahead of him, or perhaps the driver made a turn onto Weidler without watching where he was turning.
I think the thing to remember is that we don’t really know exactly what happened yet, and thus, it’s premature to say that the cyclist is solely to blame for this crash.
Hi Anonymous,
There’s an interesting discussion about media bias to be had here, but I’m not sure you’ve hit on the ideal way of starting it.
The story you suggest sounds like more of an editorial than a news investigation. Would you be interested in writing one?
Best,
Elly
I realize the facts are not all out yet, and there is a lot that is not known about the crash. I wanted to point out that Ghost Bike memorials are not intended for cyclists who get themselves killed by stupid actions, but for riders who were killed by the stupidity/carelessness of a motor vehicle driver. To use a GB memorial any place a cyclist is killed diminishes the power of the symbol, which should be saying “here is where a cyclist was killed by due to careless auto driving.”
anonymous (or should I call you by one of the many other user names you’ve had over the years?),
I would love to know more about why you feel BikePortland has become “laughable”. Seriously. I get waaay to many kudos and I really like to get criticism. Lay it on me.
As for how we’ve covered this crash so far, I don’t agree with your assessment.
I’ve published 2 stories. the first was a pretty basic report. This one is simply an analysis of the scene and what might have happened to lead to the crash.
As for coverage of Tracey Sparling’s crash. I did many stories about that. If I never did one specifically about how her actions might have impacted the outcome, it wasn’t done for any specific reason or agenda. it just happened that way.
thanks for reading.
Don’t feed the troll.
I think some people are mistaking the blathering of the comments section for the actual reporting…
The reporting is great, by the way.
Perry – not me (and I am not necessarily assuming you were talking about me) – I meant exactly what I’ve said.
But, one thing I may not have made entirely clear is my belief that the biased and inaccurate COMMENTS reflect poorly on the biking community. Anyone who comes to this site to read anything, sees the comments. Whether they are able to separate them from the reporting is irrelevant, because I was not talking about the reflection on the reporting or Bike Portland, but the biking community in general. It is one thing when the non-biking public can place blame on one reporter or one website because that can be chalked up as just one person’s or one entity’s opinion, but it is almost impossible to defend the entire community and the comments reflect on the entire community.
I am OK overall with the reporting. In this case, my only complaint was that some seemingly available perspectives, that favored the driver, were overlooked. But, I’m afraid that from the outside in we all look like a bunch of militant, car hating, biased, holier than thou idiots who are not to be taken seriously.
In this case, what we are does not really matter compared to the public’s perception of what we are. It was the public’s perception that killed the Idaho Stop Bill.
Maybe the truck was traveling down Weidler, obeying all traffic laws, and the cyclist popped out from the sidewalk into the truck’s path at the lsat moment, giving the truck no opportunity to evade.
We don’t know what the traffic was like at the time of the incident– maybe the truck could not have swerved into another lane because another vehicle was there?
I’m just making guesses here to try to figure out what happened.
To me, it looks like the cyclist made a bad choice. THIS IS NOT ME BLAMING THE CYCLIST. This is me trying to understand what happened.
From the reports both here and in other media outlets, the cyclist did not exercise the proper caution everyone should be using when utilizing the public roads.
Collisions happen because of people’s choices. There are no accidents, unless you’re talking about an act of G*d, meteor or lighting strike, plague of frogs, etc.
We don’t know– maybe the truck driver tried to evade, maybe the truck driver didn’t see him, maybe the cyclist had a death wish. WE DON’T KNOW.
re: KimJSCP
i didn’t say the driver was trying to run him down, i said that there are some drivers that exist with that attitude. i’ve been chased by cars, i mean the car five feet from my rear wheel, i’m in full sprint, they’re getting closer and closer and leaning on their car horn screaming at me to get out of the road. it’s happened a few times in the outer southeast and northeast area only. i even had a drive try to hit me and when i pulled off the road in to the nearest driveway, he locked his brakes and screeched to a stop. got out of his car and came over to me and immediately started yelling, “do you have a f*cking death wish?! what the hell do you think you’re doing?! if you want to die, i’ve got a gun my car! i’ll shoot you in the f*cking face if you want to die so bad!! get out of the f*cking road!” all of these people driving trucks, some old fords that are small and somme large so if i’m a little biased toward people that drive trucks out here i think you’ll understand why and why i’d make what seems like an accusation about this particular drivers behavior.
also, generational gaps that cause someone to resist new information sources and lack of money meaning a lack of access to information is a big deal and can’t be discounted so easily like that. my grandma used to wake up earlier than she wanted to watch the news and check the weather, if she used a computer she could have got that extra hour of “beauty sleep” but she didn’t understand computers and was actually a little afraid of them. i’m only assuming this guy’s socioeconomic status based on local business owner’s saying he collects cans around the area, but if that’s his mode of income if he does get access to a computer it’s probably at the library for an hour checking e-mail staying caught up with family that probably don’t even live out here, he doesn’t have time to read oregon traffic statutes. guarantee it! when i was travelling around for a while and sleeping under the stars, using local libraries for internet i only had enough time to write home and fill my family in on where i was and what i’d been doing and maybe read and comment on a few friends blogs. i also, know that this person could have gone to the dmv and got a manual but seriously, who ever wants to go to the dmv? i’m sure he was perfectly fine just doing what he’d been doing all along until that day when it didn’t work in his favor!
whether the cyclist or driver was at fault in this situation it shows that there’s still a long way to go to make this a fairer world. that, as priviliged members of society (i say that because we’re sitting on computers, arguing about the law that we grew up hearing and being informed of because our families and friends cared enough for us to educate us and watch our backs), we should be doing everything we can to make it safer for vulnerable road users and get people educated. whether they’re a cyclist, pedestrian, skateboarder, rollerblader or segway-er. instead of saying “it’s their own fault and they died” it could be “we went out of our way to inform this person of the dangers and they knew how to prevent this from happening so i really don’t know how this happened and it needs to be investigated” and that way police officers stop excusing potentially dangerous drivers.
KimJSCP – No, not you…and I do agree with you that the “shrill” level is sometimes a bit high.
Has anyone considered that a bike going the wrong way up a street directly at a truck may have done so on purpose? The fact that it was a mirror that hit him rather than the middle of the bumper sounds like the driver may have tried to go around him, not an easy task.
Jim,
What seems more likely to you?
1) That a cyclist intentionally rode into a head-on collision with a truck, or
2) that a cyclist and a truck accidentally collided, because one or both of the vehicle operators made a mistake?
And if you still like scenario 1, then here’s scenario 3:
The truck driver intentionally drove head-on into the cyclist, who swerved to avoid the truck and got clipped by the mirror.
That makes at least as much sense as what you proposed.
It just seems suicidle to ride the wrong direction into an oncoming truck
Or murder.
cyclist is allways right. right?
Jim,
You have NO evidence except that this was a suicide. Nevertheless, you apparently prefer your completely baseless speculation to the most likely explanation of what happened– that one or both of the vehicle operators made a mistake that resulted in a fatal accident. The cyclist’s mistake– he was allegedly riding against the flow of traffic. That alone isn’t enough to cause a collision. There has to be more. Therefore, either the cyclist rode into the driver’s path so suddenly that the driver had no time to react, or the driver turned into the cyclist’s path so suddenly (and without keeping a proper lookout) that neither had time to react. One or both of those scenarios is the most likely explanation of what happened.
And yet you prefer to engage in ghoulish and completely unfounded speculation that the cyclist deliberately rode into a head-on collision with a truck. Given that you prefer ghoulish and sensationalist speculation, the more likely scenario is that the driver deliberately murdered the cyclist– that would certainly be more in keeping with well-documented encounters between motorists and cyclists.
Nevertheless, even though that scenario is more likely than yours, I prefer the most likely explanation– that one or both vehicle operators made a mistake that resulted in a fatal collision.
nobody will ever know for sure what happened. All we can do is speculate. When ever there is an incident with a cyclist this blog is natureally biased in favor of the cyclist no matter the circumstances. I just think it makes sense to consider the other possibilities. Perhaps he didn’t read english signs and wasn’t aware he went the wrong way, or a whole bunch of other possible reasons this happened.
I do think it is terribly sad and tragic. And it should never of ever happened. Just one more reason though for me to be an advcate that cyclists nead to follow the laws and ride by the traffic rules if they expect to get to their destination in one piece. Perhaps this is an example of a bad Idaho stop? Simply though if he were riding by the rules he would be alive today.
And no, some truck driver did not go out and murder this guy. That is just a big stretch of the imagination
Jim, that’s my point– suicide is a big stretch of the imagination.
And I understand your point about bias. All I’m saying is that there’s also a bias if we just say “aha, the cyclist was breaking the law, thats why he died!” First, I’d be more comfortable saying he broke the law if somebody actually saw him riding the wrong way. That may be the case, but it’s not entirely clear from the reports. Second, while it’s possible that he was solely to blame for this collision, to assume that he was the only one at fault is just as biased as it is to say the cyclist is never at fault.
It takes more than riding the wrong way for a collision to occur. We have to ask: why didn’t the cyclist see the truck approaching? Why didn’t the driver didn’t see the cyclist approaching? Did the cyclist ride onto Weidler and into the truck’s path so suddenly that the driver had no time to react? Did the driver turn onto Weidler so suddenly, and without looking in the direction he was turning, that he hit the cyclist before he saw him? Was the driver keeping a proper lookout? Was the cyclist keeping a proper lookout? Was the driver speeding? Did the cyclist swerve too close to the truck? Did the truck try to pass the cyclist too close? Were either of them DUI?
There are a lot of questions about this accident that we don’t have the answers to, and simply saying that the cyclist was riding the wrong way doesn’t (fully) explain why there was a collision.
Just to be clear, Jim, the reason I’m asking these questions is because there are two vehicle operators involved in this collision, but only one of them lived to tell his tale. The cyclist can’t tell us his side of things, so it’s up to somebody else– hopefully all of us– to ask questions for him.
If it turns out that the cyclist was solely to blame for this accident, then he made some mistakes and paid the ultimate price. But if it turns out that the driver also made some mistakes, then he should also share the blame for what happened.
Rixter, good questions:
“It takes more than riding the wrong way for a collision to occur. We have to ask: why didn’t the cyclist see the truck approaching? Why didn’t the driver didn’t see the cyclist approaching? Did the cyclist ride onto Weidler and into the truck’s path so suddenly that the driver had no time to react? Did the driver turn onto Weidler so suddenly, and without looking in the direction he was turning, that he hit the cyclist before he saw him? Was the driver keeping a proper lookout? Was the cyclist keeping a proper lookout? Was the driver speeding? Did the cyclist swerve too close to the truck? Did the truck try to pass the cyclist too close? Were either of them DUI?” Rixter #39
Often, the situation isn’t as simple as some of us would like it to be. Sometimes, witnesses and investigations can never really explain why a particular collision occurred.
And sometimes, bias is easy to succumb to. When I first read note of Casey Burnick being someone seen collecting cans in the area, my first thought, which I quickly checked, was that he was homeless. My dad collects cans sometimes too…he’s not homeless or poor…he just does it to get them out of the ditch and to give to the grand-kids for recycling so they can earn a little pocket money.
The road really can be dangerous because of the many complex interactions that must take place between all road users in order for the road to serve its function. The priority society places on having people go about their business ever faster aggravates that danger. People are going to be much healthier if they buck the trend, go a little slower and watch more closely what’s going on around them.
captain planet – I am not sure where you are coming from with your definition of ghost bike. not only was your comment ill timed, I think it was wrong.
those memorials are for remembering a cyclist that was hit or killed on the street. it is not a statement of guilt or innocence, just rememberance.
I could tell you a lot about the wreck is I could get a clear photo of the bicycle. I could tell you which direction the impact came from, the approximate impact speed, if the cyclist was trying to avoid the truck, just from the physical evidence in the remains of the bicycle, assuming the bike is still in the condition it was in following the wreck and nobody tried to turn the wheels or anything. People might lie, or have bad memories, but the physical evidence can only lie when it has been tampered with. I believe that was a quote from “CSI” but it might have been from a really old TV show with Richard Boone.
Opus, here is a photo of Bernick and his bicycle — I assume neither was moved. Any thoughts? The photo appears to have been taken looking northwest from the entrance to the florists’ parking lot, to a few yards the east of their yellow sign. Note that the bike is in the middle of the road, nearly on the line between the lanes.
The O has also published a short obituary:
Bernick, Cary 49 09/23/1959 04/27/2009 Cary was born in Portland He worked in data entry Cary is survived by his wife, Carol; and father, Frank. A graveside service will be held at 2 p.m. Monday, May 4, 2009, in Douglass Cemetery, Troutdale. Arrangements by Bateman Carroll Funeral Home.
My sincerest condolences to the family and friends of Cary Bernick.
Whatever the circumstances, I implore all cyclists to increase their visibility. The sooner a motorist and cyclist see each other, the safer they will be. Try to achieve AUTOMATIC VISIBILITY, where the motorist can’t help but see you. Based on how the human eye works, you use bright eye-catching means so that a driver automatically looks at you. A hi-vis vest is one of the best IMO.
Let’s get yellow-green to be the new black.
I certainly hope that my comment is not interpreted as a rant. Such tragedies present an important lesson to understand why safety matters so much.
Bill- a constructive rant such as yours is allways a good thing
Elly #44,
Thanks for sharing the photo. From the picture, I think we can infer that the cyclist was in the center of the lane, not at the side, but beyond that I don’t think it will shed much light on how or why. Just my 2 cents.
It looks like he was hit pretty straight to the impacting vehicle and probably in the left tire track of the lane for the direction he was travelling, but I can’t see the rear wheel very well. Is there a photo of the bike with better resolution than the thumbnail in the article? I can see the handlebars but can’t see the damage to either wheel or the fork, and I need to see the wheels to accurately determine which end was hit first and if the cyclist was trying to dodge or if the driver was trying to dodge.
I had to reconstruct a wreck a couple of days ago so that LEO could find the driver by checking emergency rooms looking for specific injuries. I hate that kind of job.