Kevin Black was killed last February in a collision with a van. Today his family filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the driver of the Ford E250 van.
The civil suit was filed against the female driver from Gig Harbor and her employer seeking damages on behalf of Black’s family, including his two daughters. Witnesses say the 39-year-old UW scientist was headed southbound in the bike lane on 24th just south of NW 65th when the accident occurred. The lawsuit alleges that the driver “attempted a U-turn into the path of his bicycle.”
Shortly after Black’s death, bicyclists from all over Seattle gathered in a memorial ride from the scene of the accident to Golden Gardens Park.
Family of bicyclist files wrongful death lawsuit
![](https://www.myballard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024-My-Ballard-Tile-Ad-Troop-100.png")
This incident never made sense,
Why was Black following so close to large van with an obviously large blind spot.
Why wasn't Black in the bike lane?
Bicyclists in Ballard switch between being cars and bikes when whatever one suits their needs better at the time.
It looks like Black chose to be a car and lost to an actual real car.
This tragedy is still pretty raw for a lot of us. Please remember that there's a good chance his friends, wife, and daughters will read what you post here.
Chances are, most of you wouldn't crash a memorial service for someone you didn't know and try to pick a cars vs bikes fight or say insulting, insensitive things to the family, right? Why should your anonymous online commenting be any different?
If the cyclist had been in the bike lane going south, he would have been way over to the right edge of 24th and would not have been anywhere near the van whether it was making a left turn or a u-turn!
I agree with HEY HI…bicyclist choose between the rules for cars, bikes and pedestrians…whichever suits their immediate needs. It is very confusing to automobile drivers, a they cannot read a cyclists mind!
And I am a bicyclist. It makes me mad that other cyclists abuse the tweak the rules and make all of us law-abiding cyclists look like jerks.
I wonder how this would affect the driver? does she have deep pockets? wouldn't the company she works for and their fat insurance policy be a better target?
just doesn't make sense that the driver could lose her home for something that probably caused her a lot of trauma as well.
if you look at other news sites, they are suing the company as well. they also say that biker was in the bike lane and the van pulled into the lane. the biker was hit trying to go around the van that had illegally entered the bike lane.
I have to say something. This is a tragedy. I feel terrible for the biker and his family. I also feel terrible for the van driver, who I'm sure never meant for this to happen and likely struggles to get on with her life after this incident.
This was an accident. If u-turns are legal on that street I have a hard time with the poor driver being sued for wrongful death when clearly she didn't see the biker and was not doing anything wrong or intentional to hurt somebody.
From what I understood of witness reports, here are some possible answers:
“Why was Black following so close to large van with an obviously large blind spot?”
He wasn't. The van was parked on the right and performed an illegal U-turn in front of him. Yes, u-turns are legal if the way is clear. If you kill someone doing one, it's not.
“Why wasn't Black in the bike lane?”
He was but went wide when the van pulled out of the parking spot right in front of him.
“Bicyclists in Ballard switch between being cars and bikes when whatever one suits their needs better at the time.”
We have vehicles just like you, but are more vulnerable. We may ride where it is safest (of course, some cyclists don't). The bike lane is often not the safest place to be, especially when riding at car speeds or when the lane is placed in the “door zone”, as it usually is.
“It looks like Black chose to be a car and lost to an actual real car.”
Can we please drop the “cars win”, “cyclists lose” thing? It's not a game, is it? When a father of two dies?
And while we're at it, it'd be better if reporters used “collision” rather than “accident”. “Accident” implies an “oh well, stuff happens” lack of preventability or accountability.
Update: I truly regret speculating about the details of what happened here … just got a bit set off by the assumptions above. Eyewitness reports and the original police blog (not report, but blog, and about as reliable as any other) do conflict here.
Well, that will be for a jury to decide. A jury that will be presented with all the pertinent facts and evidence. Facts and evidence that you almost certainly do not possess.
According to a Toronto study 90% of cyclist fatalities and caused by the fault of the motorist, 10% by the cyclist. Here is a link to a recent article in the New York Times;
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/2…
Mr Black was a very experienced cyclist, a regular commuter and racer. I would be very very surprised if he were at fault. His loss is a true tragedy to our community.
I remember when this happened, and feeling so sorry that this horrible collision occurred, that Kevin Black was killed, his family and friends losing him forever, and the van driver carrying this burden for the rest of her life.
I don't know how this civil lawsuit will help anyone, as the lawyers will likely get any money that's awarded, but I suspect the real situation is that Kevin Black's family wants to have the court reveal that the van driver was at fault.
All the news stories at the time were exceptionally fuzzy in the details. But, the prevailing facts seemed to point to bicyclist fault, rather than van driver carelessness. If there are enough eyewitnesses who say that Kevin Black was in the bike lane at the time, (rather than far to the left in the north-bound lane while attempting to pass the van), then I say good luck to his family in their attempt to honor their loved one by clearing his name, so to speak. I think I'd do the same thing if I were in their situation.
Sorry phull of phail. It was an accident the difference is substantial. The car won (and always will). Nobody is calling it a game except the biking contingent who utilize their holier than thou attitude as a premise for playing frogger ignoring the laws and redlights whenever it suits them. Trust me, as a driver I know who will win the battle.
The first step for bikers should entail divorcing yourselves form the fallacy that you are holier than thou because you are on a bike attitude cc: critical massholes.
they probably wouldn't be suing if the facts weren't in favor of the biker. he was in the bike lane, the van swerved, he tried to swerve to avoid hitting the van thus he ended up in another lane. if the facts didn't support the driver being at fault, no one would have taken the case.
I get it. The lawsuit is the memorial service, but it appears you are the one toting the tired bikes vs. cars argument. It was an accident. I'm sorry for the loss, truly I am as I lost my father when I was young. But using the loss as an attempt to move your agenda forward while telling others what not to say is not a good coping mechanism.
I'm sorry, who's the a$$hole? You've got me all confused.
I don't know that the facts are in favor of the biker.
He was going exceedingly fast, as several have testafied to.
He was initially in the bike lane, but if he slowed and stayed in the bike lane, the van would've pulled clear.
that's why others are arguing that he chose to act like a bike or car, whichever suited him best, because at this point, combined with the excessive speed, he jumped into the 'car' lane (probably thinking that the van was going to pull out and go straight down 24th).
the fact that the point of impact happened so far to the east–in the northbound lane, might make it difficult to prove the biker had the right of way.
This won't go to trial. Insurance companies have offices full of actuaries and attorneys who specialize in when it is more appropriate to pay out vs. go to trial, and majority of the time the payouts are infinitely cheaper and minimize jackpot justice risk.
You don't know where the point of impact was. He may have been dragged halfway across the road.
The problem is that the city's streets are set up for cars whereas bikes and peds get crumbs. Just try pushing one of those big silver buttons to get a green and see how long you wait. I bike, walk, and drive, so I think I get it. I grew up biking in Manhattan. The only times I had trouble were when car drivers are unaware.
A few peds and a few bikes will go through a red light (when there are no cars coming) and sometimes a bicyclist will (legally) take a whole lane to be safe. I don't see a problem with that.
Tragedies like this one indicate that we need separated bike lanes throughout the city. And yes, this is a moral issue: use of bikes improves people's and the environment's health. That's good for everyone.
Yes, easily confused you are.
i spend a lot of time on my bike, but i really wish i had a bumper sticker that read “bicylists for other bicyclists to get the F%$K out of the road.”
these people are idiots and they can take their “rights” right into the grill of their choice. this whole story pisses me off because these poor girls of his are going to grow up without a father because of his hotshot bonehead move. HE WAS PASSING ON THE LEFT SIDE.
sad.
Having done insurance defense litigation in another life, the lawsuit is the result, more than likely, of broken down negotiations between the family (via an attorney) and the owner of the business (via an insurance claim adjuster, if the company had fleet insurance). It is a tactic of plaintiff's attorneys to also sue the driver individually, to make a claim on her own driver's policy since we are all required to have insurance if we own a car and most of those policies cover you for some amount of $$ when you're using a rental or another car. So, commencing litigation just takes the negotiations up a notch. If the insurance companies are not settling it can mean a variety of things including there are significant factual indications that there was contributory negligence and the family is not willing to recognize that fact, or that the insurance company feels the demands by the family are too large, etc. etc.
It's a tragedy for all involved and it's too bad that it may result in lots of depositions, interrogatories, and court appearances. Hopefully a settlement can be worked out and hopefully all the survivors can find space and time to heal (the family, the driver, the witnesses).
And Seattle ranks very poorly in the “safe driver” category (134 out of 200):
Article with background info:
http://www.allstatenewsroom.com/releases/4529-f…
Full data (PDF) which shows Seattle info:
http://allstatenewsroom.com/documents/425;downl…
I go by this exact spot daily and from the above picture and other reports I have read on this accident here is what I think happened:
Black was in the southbound bike lane going at pretty fast pace since this area is right after the big hill. The van was parked in the parking lane heading southbound, the van then started to enter the southbound lane crossing over the bike lane. Black saw this happen and assumed the van was moving into the southbound lane to continue southbound; since he was probably going 25 MPH or so and was close to the van he decided to just pass the van in either the southbound lane or the center lane and keep going. The van must have been moving slowly and was still partially blocking the bike lane for him to make this choice. Unfortunately, the van was pulling a u-turn and kept veering toward the east, most likely accelerating at the same time and effectively cutting him off and resulting in him hitting the van straight on in the center lane. The driver is at fault for not making sure the road was clear before attempting the u-turn, no different than if she tried this in front of a car going 25 MPH.
Not if excessive speed was involved.
people comment on news stories that he was going too fast are not “testifying”, and how can you even know they were actually there? the intial news stories and witness statements are often vastly different than the police reports and follow up investigation. basing facts of early reports of what happened is ignorant.
you cannont make the claim that he wouldn't have hit the van if he stayed in the lane. he was going faster than the van because the van had slowed to turn, he could have easily impacted at that point.
he was passing on the left side because the yan did not yield when entering the bike lane.
It is hard to have excessive speed on a bike, the speed limit is either 30 or 35 on that road. I doubt a bike could even go 35 MPH. I have driven down that hill all the time around 30 MPH or so and bicycles can barely keep up with the cars at that speed.
While 25 or 30 is fast for a bike the fact is it would be legal on that street. Also, a bike would have more manuverability that a car at the same speed so you argument falls short with me.
Apparently – if you read account closely – he happened to be passing on left because the van was on the curb… and then the van pulled out to do a U-ey… and the rest is results in someone's father's death.
THESE People are you and me my friend. Don't pass judgment too quickly.
“It is hard to have excessive speed on a bike” that arguement falls short for me.
Obviously, we are talking past each other.
The “poor driver” has side mirrors for a reason. If she had pulled a u-turn and hit a car driving in the left lane, she would be responsible. She killed someone — that's even worse, but I don't feel bad for her. I feel bad for his family.
If this accident happened between two cars under the exact same circumstances would you still be saying the driver of the southbound car was guilty because of “excessive speed”?
I hear your argument but my point is the bike could not have been going over the speed limit by much, if at all.
Tim, I appreciate the insight into what you think happened, but I can't help but wonder if a smarter reaction for a bicyclist, when seeing a vehicle pulling out in front, would be to slow down and see what happens rather than making an assumption and trying to go around.
I am a very defensive bicyclist, being a rank amateur, so I always give the car the benefit of the doubt. Also, I pictured this identical scenario as if I were in the cyclist's position, but were driving a car rather than a bicycle. I am sure that, instead of trying to maintain my speed and passing around the van, I would have braked and allowed the van the necessary room to complete whatever its driver had planned.
This entire sad incident reinforces the need for defensiveness on the part of all drivers and bicyclists, rather than aggressiveness, sorry to say.
Who – the Van – the Biker – the Planet – Gravity? It doesn't change the outcome and it's not a contest anymore for the parties involved.
Duckinseattle –
I understand your point but if in fact the van pulled out at the last minute and the biker was going fast he would have had no choice but to go left as he would not have enough stopping distance to avoid hitting the van that was at that time directly in front of him – a bit hard to visualize but true. I ride down this street everyday and if i was in the bike lane going fast and south and a van was creeping out from my right in the parking lane suddenly I would be tempted to veer left as well – then if the van accelerated suddenly it would be all over. If he was in fact heading south in the bike lane and the van pulled out across the lane and didn't see him coming it would definitely be the van's fault…an accident, yes, but definitely an avoidable one on the van's part.
24th is a dangerous road for bikers. Actually, Ballard is dangerous for bikers!
the bike lane is to the left of the parking lane. If the van was parked (as reported), and attempted to do a u-turn or even get into the driving lane, it must cross the bike path.
I recall that a few eyewitnesses said the driver was accelerating into a red light…..
of course, I was not there and don't have the information the parties involved no doubt have, so I'm not trying to get too deep into this, but speed kills even on bikes.
the car probably looked for cars before turning, look for bikes too. its is very simple to do.
Ignore the facts and blame the cyclist. It's fun and games pointing the finger at the victim until it is your family member laying in the street because a driver does an ignorant maneuver without looking first. Your point of view will change in a heartbeat.
Next time someone pulls a U turn in front of your car or pulls out in front of you, your reaction will be to smile and wave at them because they just didn't see you and you were driving too fast. Or you are hypocrites.
no, my reaction would be to slow down or stop even.
I don't think Kevin's background as someone who races bicycles will help this case. fact is, his speed played a significant role in things.
because it's true that cars always win then the fault generally also lies with the driver.
as a car driver bikes annoy me frequently…but they aren't going to kill me either. as a frequent bike commuter cars scare the s*** out of me. i suspect that's the reason for all the passions behind 'biker rights'. hence bikers are entirely entitled to their opinions, passions, ill-advised critical mass clubs, and especially THE LAW.
whether you like it or not bikes have more rights than cars including the use of bike lanes, car lanes, and sidewalks.
last year i saw a dude's brains all over the road on the corner of Eastlake and the street by the university bridge. the cement truck took a left into oncoming bike and car traffic and did not yield, ran over two bikers crossing into the intersection on a legal green light. no charges were filed.
but you ballardrocksnow should be charged just for you attitude.
Except entering a center lane to make a Uturn is not the same thing as actually making a Uturn.
That said, not a single person posting here was an eye witness so every statement is speculation.
accident or not, any driver performing such a u-turn is legally responsible to yield to other traffic i.e. the biker.
Speed is irrelevant if he was going under the speed limit – would you say the same about a car if it were traveling 25mph???
Also, here it is extremely unlikely he was going above 35 mph – that is faster than any average city racing speed for that terrain.
Check you facts man.
What a sad story. From all that we've read/heard, this was an unfortunate “accident” not a wrongful death.
doesn't seem like the van driver could have had the right of way – so it seems obvious the biker traveling the right direction down the street would have had the right of way, regardless of which lane he was in.
so if he was going 26 mph (not difficult to do for someone descending a long hill), would he then share in some blame?
“terrain”? it's a freakin' paved road, not some ragged trail.
I don't really care if he was going above 35 mph. it's posted (for safety reasons) as 25, right?
You don't even know how to read.
Tim, “excessive speed” is not determined by the speed limit, which is just a *maximum possible* speed. Excessive speed means you are traveling too fast to be able to stop or avoid any reasonably foreseeable obstacle in the road ahead.
Cars pulling out from the curb into traffic seems reasonably foreseeable to me.
I think DIS' point is that it's not safe to ride a bike fast in that area, because if someone pulls out, you won't have the option of slowing/stopping and letting the car go ahead of you.
pr – the speed limit does *not* indicate what is a safe speed, it's just an absolute maximum limit that you can't exceed. Driving/riding conditions vary, and the “maximum safe speed” varies with those conditions. If you're a light person on a light bike, you will be able to stop much more quickly, so your maximum safe speed would be faster than someone with a setup that can't stop as quickly.
Please everyone, get in your car, view the side mirror and let us know if you truly cannot see an oncoming bike no matter how fast they are going. If you cannot, then either we need to evaluate the law or we need to get you to driving school.
Are you a troll, or are you really this mean? just curious.
Good I hope his family wins. People have to learn they don't OWN the road. They share it and if their lazy Arse's don't bike, that doesn't mean they don't yield to them.
Categorizing a biker as a law breaker is for the idiots of the world to do.
If you get caught hitting a bicyclist, you will face time and a court case….you choose if that is worth it, mr ignorant car driver.
Yes, Mondoman, that is exactly what I was trying to say. You just managed to say it far more succintly!
I live just west of 24th a few blocks north of 65th. I rode my bike down 24th a couple of times after the bike lane went in, and decided it was simply too dangerous. Depending on my destination, I now go a couple of blocks over, either east or west, and travel the side streets. It's slower, but far safer.
Just a troll trying to make life hard for the Geeky Swedes who have made a living this year selling advertising by posting story after story about bikes vs. cars. Every story degenerates into the same stupid predictable arguments and they should be ashamed for driving a wedge into the community.
Lots of mis-information in the comments here. The van was not parked. The Police stated the van was moving southbound on 24th. The Bicyclist ran into the Van. Correct? The act of U-turning is a left turn and if the cyclist T-boned the van, I think cyclist failed to stop in a timely manner. The U-turn part of the action occurs in the oncoming traffic lane. If I was driving my car, I would be ticketed for failing to stop and smashing into the van.
The Police report should be posted. Does anyone have it?? It's public information.
This is grotesque. A man died. Another woman probably wishes she had. Shut the comments down.
So you know so much about what happened why do YOU post the police report? Moron.
Folks – look at the photo. That van wasn't exiting the curb lane, and that bike wasn't in the bicycle lane.
See that photo and an original account when the accident happened here:
https://www.myballard.com/2009/02/04/accident-at…
The original report, quoting police and other witnesses said:
“As the traffic signal turned green for southbound and northbound traffic (at 65th), witnesses stated the van proceeded through the intersection and the bicyclist passed all the stopped southbound vehicles on the left at a high rate of speed then briefly moved back into the bicycle lane,” police say. “South of the intersection the van signaled and moved into the left turn lane in order to turn left onto NW 64th Street. Witnesses stated the bicyclist attempted to pass the van on the left as it entered the turn lane. The bicyclist collided with the left rear of the van.” Medics tried to revive the 39-year-old man, but his injuries were too severe.
This man's death is very, very sad. However, witness accounts have the cyclist riding irresponsibly, giving in to the temptation to cruise down 24th – a long, slow slope going southbound – at an unsafe rate of speed, in an unsafe manner, weaving in and out of traffic and around cars.
Look at the photo – it faces southeast. That white apartment building is on the east side of 24th, just south of that little store. There is no way that this collision occurred the way that some on this board are claiming – that the van pulled out of a parking space along the curb on the west side of the street, crossing the bike lane and colliding with and killing this man. Both the van and the damaged bike can be seen clearly in the photo to be in the northbound lanes – a good 30 feet from the eastern southbound curb.
I can sympathize with the families' desire to help care for this man's children, now without a father, a father's love, and a father's income. But this accident as sad as it is was caused by irresponsible cycling.
https://www.myballard.com/2009/02/04/accident-at…
Why call the guy a moron for citing the original reports of the accident?
LOOK AT THE PICTURE. If the collision occurred on the West side of the street as the van was pulling out of a parking space near the curb – what the heck is it doing way over on the northbound lanes – a good 30 feet from the curb and a good 60-degrees turned around from pointing south?
If the cyclist was in the bike lane – what is his crumpled bike doing under the left rear dire of the van – WAY OVER IN THE NORTHBOUND LANES ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE TURN LANE??
Sheesh, folks. Look at the photo.
Get your eyes checked. By that account and looking at the photo the van was turning left into the Viking.
just because you read a news article and comments, doesn't make any of that fact. keep in mind that where the collision occurs and where the car/bike/people end up can be drastically different. Just because they ended up over there, doesn't mean that's where the collison happened.
obviously the police report supports the man on the bike, or they wouldn't have a case. most lawyers who take on high profile cases aren't going to mess with it if the facts are bad.
just because the van and bike ended up there, doesn't mean that's where the collison occured. the van probably kept moving after impact before stopping, which could have moved the bike.
sheesh, folks…let's try and think a little.
You were caused by irresponsible intercourse.
My eyes work just fine. Looking at the photo the van was indeed turning left – I never said it wasn't.
But it damn well wasn't turning left from the curb – it was IN THE LEFT TURN LANE – in other words, nowhere near the bike lane.
Clearly as reported – and as shown in the photo – the cyclist was attempting to pass the van ON THE LEFT, in the left turn lane, where the bike had no business being, no business passing, and going way too fast.
Sorry folks – this was a suicide, not some act of an irresponsible van owner jumping out of a parking space in front of a helpless cyclist minding his own business in the bike lane along the right side of southbound 24th. There is no way it is physically possible for that to be true and what is shown in the photo to be there.
Get your own damn eyes checked.
or i've read the police report, ace. which is probably a lot more accurate than the crap everyone on here is spewing.
Uh – how do you figure the bike got way over there from the right – hand curb lane?
No, the police report does not support the man on the bike, or the driver of the van would have been cited. And who says they have a case? Filing a case isn't a win – it's a sign that this family was descended upon by predatory lawyers who see dollar signs win or lose. And this case is hardly “high-profile”.
Weren't we all?
Seriously – is this the best you can do? Are you out there respresenting safe cyling making comments like this?
Look numbnuts – *I* am a cyclist – and a father. I deeply mourn the loss of this man to his family, and our community. I am profoundly interested in seeing LESS of this sort of thing happening, and knee-jerk car-bashing isn't going to get us there, only an acknowledgement that “sharing the road” means elevated driver awareness AND more attention by cyclists to the rules of the road.
If you disagree, feel free to make another idiotic wise-ass comment to demonstrate the depth of your intelligence again.
you don't know the driver wasn't cited. they weren't criminally charged, there's a difference kiddo.
and i would consider a case that has been covered on every seattle news station today, pretty high profile for any attorney.
Jo,
The reports I have seen make no mention of the driver being cited.
As you have read the police report – I'm sure you can answer the question definitively.
And even if the driver was cited that doesn't prove fault. It's possible that the cyclist might have been cited had he lived.
At any rate – what does the police report say?
“High profile” and “having been reported in the news” are different things entirely. There is no regional, class action or nationwide significance here. This is a simple civil lawsuit claiming wrongful death – happens in traffic accidents of all kinds, even those that make the news, even if the verdict seldom does.
One thing for sure here – attorneys will get paid.
calling people names on blogs doesn't make you look stellar either. all i am saying is that you are all quick to make comments and speculate, when there are so many facts out there you don't know. as a cyclist, you should be more supportive of a situation that is trying to create a safer world for people out there on their bikes. kevin was in the right. the police report shows that. you have your facts, but i have mine, and i fully support the family.
It's also worthy of note that it is not legal – even for cars – to pass in the left turn lane, where the cyclist was attempting to pass this van.
I remain unclear as to why the cyclist was attempting to pass this van at all – much less in the left-turn lane. Again, experienced cyclist or not, the temptation to cruise down 24th at a good clip on a nice day (I've done it and the bike lane *is* scary if for no reason other than the possibility of car doors opening at the last minute) is hard to resist. Passing on the left though – that would represent a serious lapse in judgement.
That's just silly – people file lawsuits all the time – and lose those lawsuits. Just because they think they have a case (and were this just a private vehicle instead of a work vehicle with a deep-pocketed business behind it) I doubt that there would BE a lawsuit.
You seem to be claiming that “they filed a lawsuit, therefore they must have all the evidence to win that lawsuit”.
Heck – why bother with judge or jury at all?
No, he was not in the bike lane – by both witness accounts and the evidence at the seen (LOOK AT THE PHOTOGRAPH) he was attempting to pass IN THE LEFT TURN LANE – a full lane (+ bike lane) to the left of the bike lane.
Your argument that the case must be cut and dried simply because someone was able to file it is bizarre and naive.
I don't see any huge 40 foot long blood smear in that photo, do you?
Sheesh. LOOK AT THE PHOTO.
False. If the cyclist was passing, then the cyclist did not have the right of way – the van did.
If the cyclist was passing in the left turn lane – way the hell and gone outside of the bike lane – then not only did he not have the right of way, he was blatantly breaking the law.
you're just trying to play with me today aren't ya! you're sad jeffy.
time for us all to calm down and have a drink!
Jo,
You said “as a cyclist you should be more supportive of a situation that is trying to create a safer world for people out there on their bikes.”
You see to be arguing that “being supportive” means “blame the car”. I AM being supportive of trying to create a safer world for people out there – support which includes noting that when cyclists ride recklessly – death can result. I know that there are a LOT of cyclists who die needlessly due not to their own carelessness, but that of drivers not properly sharing the road. I simply don't believe that this is one of those cases, and that being supportive of a safer world for cyclists includes the acknowledgement that CYCLISTS HAVE RESPONSIBILITIES TOO.
Hey Jeff, I get it. You know what happened, and can give an accurate account in a court of law.
What's your contact info so I can pass it on?
Oh – and how about pointing us all to that police report so that we can all see it?
I don't believe that you've actually read it. I believe that you're lying.
Nope. I have the reports I've read and the photograph in front of me.
Do you disagree with my view that the cyclist was in the wrong here? If so – why then I guess YOU know what happened and can give an accurate account in a court of law.
Right?
i feel bad for you man. get a life.
It's “Jeff” actually. And no- I have no desire to play with you. This is a conversation, not a game, and a man has lost his life and children have lost their father. I seriously hope fewer such families suffer such loss, and that if anything comes out of this lawsuit and any attention it garners – it's lives saved.
Having fun yet?
Now – not sure where your comment came from, much less addressing me as “Jeffy” (whatever that means). If the man was dragged 40 feet under a tire, there would be a lot of very visible evidence of that. There is none that I'm aware of.
Amen.
Actually, I've made no such claim. I can speculate on the report, articles, and the photo, but since I'm not a crime/traffic scene investigator, I'm sure no court of law is going to take my word for it.
Funny thing is, I don't see that same humility from you.
My work is done here.
Why do you feel bad for me?
Why do you feel that I have no life?
Is it because I believe that this cyclist was riding unsafely? Is that what has earned me your pathetic insults?
Seriously – is this the best you can do? Or is there maybe something constructive you'd like to offer?
A man has lost his life, for heaven's sake. Children are growing up without a father. What sort of legacy do YOU hope will come out of this tragic loss?
Under “getting a life”, perhaps you can put just a smidgen of priority in attempting to answer THOSE questions rather than flicking playground insults into your keyboard.
A+++
==Quote==
If the cyclist had been in the bike lane going south, he would have been way over to the right edge of 24th and would not have been anywhere near the van whether it was making a left turn or a u-turn!
==UnQuote==
The van tried to make a u-turn from the right parking lane, crossing the bike lane, the right lane, and the middle turning lane. The bicyclist might have swerved to the left when the van pulled out, thinking it was pulling out to continue south, only to see the van turn right in front of his path. It is irrelevant whether the bicyclist was in the bike lane or the traffic lane – it was legal for him to be in either.
It is possible that a jury will find there was shared negligence. Making a u-turn from the parking strip is negligent on the face of it, however.
Jeff, you don't know the obvious law…there's no way you'd pass the knowledge test at the DOL with what you display here.
1) A Van pulling a U-turn will never have the 'right of way'. He must yield to all other traffic.
2) A bike in this situation my legally use any of the three lanes in his direction of travel a) bike lane b) right lane c) left lane. On the off chance the bike was in the turn lane making a turn (and why would he do that?) the van would still probably be at fault depending on who entered that lane first. But since this wasn't a head-on your last point is just pointless fiction.
==Quote==
I wonder how this would affect the driver? does she have deep pockets? wouldn't the company she works for and their fat insurance policy be a better target?
==UnQuote==
The employer is named in the suit along with the driver. They could be responsible if they witnessed the driver making the same unsafe maneuver in the past in order to get to their business and said or did nothing about it. Apparently, this was a shortcut to the driver had made on numerous occasions before.
==Quote==
If u-turns are legal on that street…
==UnQuote==
A u-turn from the right parking lane is not legal under any circumstance. Otherwise, they are legal ONLY if they can be done safely. The article didn't say whether the driver was cited, but I'd be very surprised if she wasn't.
jeff, until you know the facts, i suggest you just give up. considering none of us know what really happened, or what the police report says, we are just wasting our time going back and forth. your name calling and attempts to be the last man standing are just making it that much more evident that you have no idea what actually happened. i pray his family doesn't read the garbage and misinformation you are saying.
RIP kevin.
yeah…just looked at the pics. looks like the van was attempting a u-turn and not a left turn. even if there had been no accident his u-turn was obviously illegal as he would have been up on the curb to complete it…or backing up into traffic on a 3 point turn. that the driver pulled a bad move AND killed a biker makes the driver of the van clearly responsible.
what is more the turning radius of the van also seems to indicate he would have had to start his turn even before he entered the center turn lane. if that's the case, this is most certainly a wrongful death case and not just a case of crappy driving.
Rob,
One person has claimed to have actually read the police report – and I agree that until that information is shared with the rest of us, we won't know what's on it.
And MY name calling? Are you serious?
How DARE I suggest that a cyclist may have been riding unsafely. It appears that I have commited the Cardinal Sin of Naked Critical Mass Activists. My bad. I don't know what came over me. Everyone knows that cyclists NEVER ride unsafely, would NEVER contribute to their own death or injury by doing so, and that cars, vans, trucks – basically anything with wheels over an inch wide – are evil, as are their drivers.
“Garbage and misinformation” indeed.
That's pretty much how I see it too. Pulling a u-turn from the parking strip is negligent on the face of it, it seems to me, however.
A witness might see a bicycle going 15 mph as traveling fast, but a car going at the same speed as traveling slow. Regardless, it was legal for the bicyclist to be traveling up to the speed limit (probably 25 mph there), whether in the traffic or the bike path. Pretty hard to prove he was exceeding the speed limit, it seems to me.
good plan, give Jeff Welch about 10 please!
all you can recall is reported witness accounts and nothing from a police report. the speculation is unnecessary. what do you get from this? you're not involved, so why drag up motives of a man who passed away in an accident while grieving friends and family are reading?
==Quote==
Witnesses stated the bicyclist attempted to pass the van on the left as it entered the turn lane.
==UnQuote==
If that was the case, the van would have needed to “levitate” to get into the position it ended up at. The report is simply wrong, perhaps derived from interviewing the driver. There was more than one witness account that stated the driver had pulled over into the right parking lane, before pulling the u-turn.
pulling INTO traffic is one thing. pulling ACROSS several lanes is another thing entirely. we weren't there. we don't know.
I have conflicting feelings about this. As a scooter rider, I know the dangers of the u-turn from the right lane – all drivers and especially those on 2-wheels fear this scenario. The problem that I have is the speed at which Kevin was travelling on his bicycle. In my eyes, both were at fault (say 80/20) so who do you blame? Destroying someone's business and getting a bunch of money will not bring Kevin back.
and where exactly is the road/alley/driveway the van was left turning onto?
She, not he.
Just a sad deal all around. Please support his friends and family as the heartache certainly continues.
my husband was a witness. the van crossed over the line into the bike lane and the bike went left to avoid hitting it. the van then swung the turn and hitting mr. black. the van also moved after the collision, according to my husband, but for reasons that are inappropriate to post (some of us respect that the family reads this). the bike was not swerving through traffic and was in the proper lane until the van abruptly turned. some of the initial reports were wrong about the speed he was going, which wasn't more than the speed limit.
AH! A racer eh? That was the problem. Witness reported him traveling in excess of 30mph – had he been going 10mph he would have been unable to avoid the van. Hell, on a motorcycle he would have been able to do it.
and you're going to accomplish all of this on a local blog under the eyes of grieving friends and family? show some respect. get on your soap box somewhere else. i don't necessarily disagree with your message but your approach is despicable.
Not that's just bull. Going down that hill will cause a regular cycle to go about 40mph if the rider does not ride the break. He was also a racer, so was probably enjoying the speed if not adding his own power to keep the momentum building. Try measuring speed next to Seward park during the bicycle only days – you will see racers on a flat going pretty fast.
I'll take 'em. A well-aged whiskey would be great.
No matter how drunk I get – I'm still going to recognize that there are times when cyclists ride dangerously and wind up the victims of their own mistakes, much as that tweaks folks-who-believe-cyclists-can-do-no-wrong.
Crown Royal is a fave as well.
Quit with the “grieving friends and family” crap. Anyone concernd about being offended by discussion of this case should avoid these boards like the plague and stick to invitation only Google groups.
Your implication is that this issue should only be discussed in nicey-nice terms, not daring to suggest that a cyclist may have been riding irresponsibly is nonsense. Now nice that you climb up on a soapbox of your own to tell me to get off of mine. Don't like my “approach”? Tough.
personally, i'm not a huge fan of cyclists. my husband was a witness, also not a fan of cyclists, and was 100% sure the van was at fault. you can post all day long on what you think, but at least the family knows the truth because of people like my husband. i hope they find peace and i hope you learn not to base your truths off of the media. feel free to keep coming back at people with more negativity, i am done reading it.
You're an idiot.
I won't claim to know what speed Mr. Black was travelling, but it is a fallacy to say that a bicycle going 30 mph is more manueverable than a car going the same speed.
Bicycles may be light, but bike tires are very frequently (for efficiency) very skinny and provide insufficient traction for fast stops or sharp turns at high speeds.
I have personally discovered this in my own biking, having had to veer away from a pedestrian jay walking in front of me while I was travelling 30 mph down a steep hill. A similar situation in my car would've been handled with no skidding. I skittered halfway across the road and count myself extraordinarily lucky that I didn't crash.
My take-away from this is, until and unless I equip my bike and my skills in such a way that I can manuever my bike better than a car at those speeds, I will not travel at those speeds.
Now Mr. Black probably was extraordinarily skilled and he may have equipped his bike with tires that have plenty of traction; I don't know.
But I really hate seeing the fiction that a bike is more manueverable than a car at all speeds. It leads to the erroneous conclusion that a bicycle travelling at or below the speed limit cannot possibly be speeding (partially defined as travelling too fast for the conditions).
ballardrocksnow – I will never understand this “holier than thou” accusation. Many employers in this area pay for and otherwise encourage employees to commute by bike. My last employer gave bikes away for free to employees who would ride them to work. The critical mass cyclists are a minority – why would you think all bicyclists are represented by them?
And clearly you are an Ivy League grad. Your mother must be very proud.
just what is wrong with a cyclist riding the speed limit? if a car should look for a car b4 pulling a u-ey, said car should look for anything traveling that speed.
true, ballardmike, but hopefully the rest of us can learn lessons from this.
No! A bike should be able to act like a car. If a car pulling a u-turn can look for cars approaching at 30 mph, said car can look for bikes too. I do.
it is surprising how many people don't know that the speed limit on Seattle arterials is 30 unless otw posted.
meant to say that such speed limit applies to cyclists as well as motorists. so be prepared. missing in the discussion i've read so far is that scooters are often in the same position as bicyclists. Either way – they often have the right of way and drivers would prefer to ignore that fact
I'm proud of Jeff11. I can't say I feel the same for you, boy.
Mr. Welch – it is not unusual for accident results to look odd. I've been there myself in a car vs. car accident where the state trooper could not understand how each of us ended up where we were. plz don't take too much from the pix or the reports.
As long as he was riding appropriate for the conditions, why do you have a problem with his speed? Was it raining? Low visibility? Slick roads? Heavy traffic? Those are conditions that might be cause for slowing down, but if not, then as long as he did not exceed the speed limit, he was riding appropriately.
Obviously, the van driver thought there was little to no traffic, hence the attempted U-turn. The photos showed no water on the roadway, and no fog or glare. Perfect riding/driving conditions which justify riding up to the posted speed limit.
I am so sorry for your husband – that must have been very traumatic. The witness who saw me get hit (and who thought I must have been killed) was very traumatized. You and your husband have my sympathy (as, of course, does Mr. Black's family).
Thanks, Mrs. Welch!
sorry – didn't realize it wasn't you doug11.
Jeff Welch – What is your problem? Anyone can see that the van couldn't have started it's turn from the left turn lane. It's facing practically backwards in the lane. It had to have started from at least the southbound lane, and that's illegal. You can't turn left from that lane you have to start from the left turn lane. It's also quite plausible that it started from the curb or veered into the bike lane to gain more room for it's turn. If the van was doing an illegal turn and either blocked the bike lane or turned into the path of the bike, then anything the bike did after that to avoid a collision was legal. Is that not obvious to anyone who has ever driven?
Hey wiseguy, is that an official police photo? Why the hell are you holding it up as the holy grail? It's an amateur photo from across the street that shows little to no detail of skid marks, blood stains, or other detritus.
It's entirely possible the van may NOT have stopped immediately upon impact.
If a car pulled from the curb into the right most lane, why wouldn't I move my car to the left lane to avoid it? If that car continues to pull into my left lane and I can't slow/stop in time, I'm going to go into the middle lane and honk his ass while flipping him the bird. Instead, that car continues pulling a U-turn, and a plausible option left is that we impact in the middle turn lane.
But hell, I could be wrong, and so could you.
Eyes checking not required. Just common sense that only the collision investigators have the more pieces of the story than we've got, no matter how many news articles we read.
you are basing all of your arguments on hearsay and one photo. seriously, dude. wake up. if you truly want to be a voice of reason and education pony up with actions and get off the internet.
NO I read the police report too, I recal they said he was traveling at speed. There were some eyewitneeses, proportedly, on this site.
As for the motives, I never claimed to know them.
As for the family, I do tread lightly.
Lemme guess, this story was linked to by the Seattle Times. Right?
Has anyone considered that maybe someone's insurance is not following through on covering any of the expenses, and suing the company is the only alternative the family has for medical costs? Sometimes you have to force the situation to get insurance to fork over anything!
In theory, yes. However, aside from bikes being a lot smaller and thus harder to spot, bikes may be approaching using a much wider range of routes than can cars. They can ride on the sidewalk, next to parked cars, in the bike lane, in the normal driving lanes, etc. These two differences combine to make it much harder to be *sure* no bike is approaching from behind.
Its not advertising, its “sponsorship” :)
++ to your post.
That comment is not me. That is not the real doug11. Click the name and you will see it is Frayed Not, pretending to be doug11
I did not comment on this thread or read it all day. I learned of these comments attributed to me through the forums.
It's a real problem that it's this easy to spoof another user and I'll raise that in on the forum and privately with the GeekySwedes. They should not be using separate registrations for the blog and the forum, and the user names should not be case sensitive and so easy to spoof.
Again, this comment was not from the real doug11, me. I did not post on this thread at all.
It makes me feel sick to even write this here. My deepest sympathies are with the bicyclist who lost his life and his friends and family. My heart goes out to them.
I did not comment here out of respect. I don't like threads about accidents or death. I debate bike issues but there is a time and place for everything and this is not the time and place. I draw the line there. I think everyone should. All you people speculating on this and assigning blame should be ashamed of yourselves.
The person who is impersonating me here and making such disgusting comments is one of the most pathetic pieces of s*** to ever walk on this planet. Nice to know they live amongst us, right here in good old Ballard.
I am sorry everyone who had to read this. Sincerely sorry. Please, please believe me. I insist I don't take things personally here, but this I take personally.
doug11, Internet troll, unwitting victim of Doug11, Internet troll.
I'm going to do what I can to clarify this issue and then I am going to take a break from this site.
doug11
That comment is not me. That is not the real doug11. Click the name and you will see it is Frayed Not, pretending to be doug11
I did not comment on this thread or read it all day. I learned of these comments attributed to me through the forums.
It's a real problem that it's this easy to spoof another user and I'll raise that in on the forum and privately with the GeekySwedes. They should not be using separate registrations for the blog and the forum, and the user names should not be case sensitive and so easy to spoof.
Again, this comment was not from the real doug11, me. I did not post on this thread at all.
It makes me feel sick to even write this here. My deepest sympathies are with the bicyclist who lost his life and his friends and family. My heart goes out to them.
I did not comment here out of respect. I don't like threads about accidents or death. I debate bike issues but there is a time and place for everything and this is not the time and place. I draw the line there. I think everyone should. All you people speculating on this and assigning blame should be ashamed of yourselves.
The person who is impersonating me here and making such disgusting comments is one of the most pathetic pieces of s*** to ever walk on this planet. Nice to know they live amongst us, right here in good old Ballard.
I am sorry everyone who had to read this. Sincerely sorry. Please, please believe me. I insist I don't take things personally here, but this I take personally.
doug11, Internet troll, unwitting victim of Doug11, Internet troll.
I'm going to do what I can to clarify this issue and then I am going to take a break from this site.
doug11
.
Not the first time being called a moron.
I do not have access to the police report but sometimes newspapers request this information through FOI. The police gave a statement that contradicts some of the blogging. The picture contradicts this as well.
Hopefully, we will see a post in the Times or the P-I.
Not true. Coasting down 24th on a good road bike, depending on body position, will get you up to 24-25 mph. Working fairly hard will get you up to 30.
The photo shows where the van ended up, not where either the van or the cyclist was at any point previous to impact.
N – there are other conditions, such as the bike's minimum stopping distance at a given speed, and the amount of traffic/cars, that may reduce the appropriate maximum speed.
do civil suits even have a jury?
why is this thread even open for discussion? its just a bunch of speculation
I wasn't there, and sharing is caring's husband was. What he says is consistent with other reports I've heard from people who live and work on 24th.
As for police reports, they are notorious for containing errors as well as omitting relevant information. I've given interviews at the scene of accidents and been amazed by how tenuously the police report reflects reality when the report shows up in court. They can be easily skewed by factors like what questions the officer on the scene chooses to ask, as well as who decides to stick around and allow themselves to be interviewed.
In all probability the primary source of information for the official police report in question is the driver of the van; Kevin Black's version of the events leading up to the collision certainly wasn't included.
I agree with you. People seem to underestimate the amount of wind resistance that needs to be overcome to achieve such speeds on a light bicycle.
I can't remember – did the police charge the driver with a crime or write her up for a violation/traffic citation as a result of this accident?
Hear, hear! I don't know why most of the stories are open to discussion on myballard when they're filled with so much animosity — I would have never known my neighbors were filled with such hostility towards each other if it weren't for myballard comments to enlighten me.
FWIW, you don't see the same level of hostility on the other neighborhood sites…
One version I have heard that sounds plausible (and may be on here?) is that the driver swerved right to wind up for a sharp left U-turn. The cyclist in the bike lane veered left, incorrectly assuming the driver was about to make a right turn. The driver pulled the U-turn, blocking the bike's path in the process. I have no idea of course if this was the case, but it does make sense from a cyclist's point of view, and it does explain how everyone was in position for such an event. Regardless of how it happened, hopefully drivers and cyclists alike can learn a few things from the tragic consequences.
Finally. It is official what really happend. It was obvious by looking at the post accident photo of the van and where it was located. Right in front of the Viking Tavern where it was headed when driver started her u-turn. So, now we can take blame away from the bicyclist. And stop with the assumptions that the bike commuter was irresponsible.
I feel sorry for the driver and company that owns the van. I also feel sorry for the family of the biker. I never understood why bikers (I am one) ride aggressively in traffic when it's obvious who will lose in a bike/car confrontation. Doesn't matter who was “right”.
Riding down the street is “aggressive”?
The police did a full investigation of the accident, and in the end charged the van driver w/ neglegence. This debate is completely pointless.
Yes, if one of the parties files a jury demand.
Actually, no. If you hit someone who has the right of way, it is not a legal defense to say the person who had the right of way was speeding. This is well established Washington law.
This upsets me, primarily because the outcome of the investigation at the time was that Black was riding in the median, speeding past cars, and when the driver made a legal U-turn (using turn signal, even) he was caught off guard and tried to slide under and was killed.
It's completely tragic and so sad, and it's horrible that his children don't have a father. However, it was his choice to break cycling laws meant for his own safety (such as using the bike lane) and his own recklessness led to his death. I remember MyBallard reporting that the driver of the van was distraught- imagine how you'd feel if you were driving legally, and someone else made a choice that cost them their life, but you always feel like maybe it was your fault even though it wasn't. Now, out of greed, it's like a worst nightmare coming true almost 7 months later.
Honestly, I'm horrified at this. This isn't a cyclists vs. cars debate, though most will treat it as such. This is about choices, and Kevin Black chose to drive recklessly and it led to his death. How horrible that now two more families will suffer needlessly in this legal battle, as though the tragedy of children losing their father wasn't sad enough.
I really wish this wasn't happening and it put a damper on my entire day.
This whole thing is really tragic and I don't think anybody reading this forum has enough information to know what really happened. I had initially read that the driver had been making a right turn *into* a parking lot and didn't see him in the bike lane to the right. Now the report says she was making a u-turn (which is generally a bad idea whether legal or not). So, I think there is no way for any of us readers to know enough to make judgment, this is going to be left to the judge and of course the driver knows what happened and the witnesses if there were any. Lawsuits are traumatic, losing a parent is traumatic, accidentally killing someone is traumatic, losing a spouse is traumatic. I think all around the whole situation sucks for everyone involved. Plus, lawsuits aren't always about greed – sometimes they are meant to make a point. If the driver was really driving recklessly, then I imagine the family is trying to get across to people who drive large vehicles for a living how important it is to drive safer than the average person while you're in a large commercial vehicle so hopefully this can be avoided in the future. I'm not saying I think the driver in this situation was driving recklessly because I don't have enough info. but sometimes lawsuits are about making sure folks remember to take responsibility – not trying to get lots of money.
If they're not settled out of court. Most large companies will push to settle out of court to save money and lower publicity.
Most lawyers – especially nowdays – will not take a lawsuit on if they don't think there is enough evidence to give a good chance to win at least. Unless this family already has deep pockets, the lawyer is taking this on a contingency meaning if they lose he will not get paid for *anything*. Plus, if they had close to nothing in their favor the defendant could file a counter-suit for harrassment and sue the plaintiffs for all the defendant's legal fees. So, unless their lawyer is a complete idiot, they must have some sort of case.
As for “the lawyers getting everything” – the defense lawyers will get paid for their time and if this is a contingency, if they settle out of court the plaintiff lawyer will probably get 25% and if they go to court and win he/she will get 30% most likely. If they lose he/she will get nothing.
The sanest comment I've seen in this forum. I've been looking through here to see if anyone had actual information instead of this armchair detective let's-speculate stuff like this is some sort of TV show and not a tragedy that happened to our neighbors. This whole thing terrifies me because my husband bikes to work downtown and it is one of my worst nightmares that this could happen to him. So, I have been trying to find out what happened and your comment helps shed some light since your husband was a witness (poor guy – that must've been awful to see!)
I am absolutley appaulled by all of this! This is shameful for people to be spouting off on this as if they know what really happened because they can read a blog or looked at a picture.
I do know what really happened and there is very very good cause to go after this in the civil arena. Companies should be responsible for their commercial drivers. They should make sure that they put safety before getting to a jobsite. This woman was careless and negligent. She made the choice to try to beat the cars behind her to make a u-turn to get in fron t of the Viking and executed it so fast that she did not take care to check if it was safe for anyone. She actually thought she dropped a ladder off her truck from her erratic manuver! Her fault and her companies fault for not making their drivers put saftey ahead of getting somewhere faster. Not Kevin's fault for riding down the bike lane and not having anyway to anticipate her stupid driving.
I wonder if all these people who are like JeffWelch would actually say these things while looking me in the eyes. A family member, someone who does have all the facts and who does feel the real pain. The driver, she has to live with what she did but her real punishment ffom our legal system is that she gets some infractions for killing someone that is all. Not criminal to kill someone while driving unless you were drinking or speeding excessively. So if someone is just daydreaming or in a hurry and runs you over, they get a ticket unless the prosecuter can prove intent to do harm. That is the truth, the state of washigington just overturned a law that made it crimimal in Seattle if a drivers negligence results in the death or serious injury of another person. Litterly you can get runover in a crosswalk and if the driver simiply didn't see you or wasn't paying attention they get an infraction nothing more. So you tell me what other form of punishment is there for people to hopefully have some accountablity for their own actions? This is what all these people who have all these grand opions should really be getting fired up about.
I am really saddened that these forums are allowed to flourish with these types of stories. We do live here and unfortunately I came accross this. The anger and acrid comentary by some of the people I know is really more sad for them than anyone else but it does make my stomache turn to know that people can take tragedy like this to vent whatever unhappiness they have.
I know for a fact he was not at fault.
You need to read the full police report. The family wants to clear his name.
There is a law in Washington that prevents a more serious change to the driver.
What is wrong with this state ruling? Read the Seattle Times dated Aug 18th.
This was not considered a crime by the District Attorney, hence their is a lawsuit to prove that Mr. Kevin Black was not a reckless driver. How is his girls going to survive without their Dad. Give the family a break.
Please remove the photos of Kevin Black with his two girls and my family member (not his daughters)
They were used in the memorial service and the newspaper should not be using them without the minor childrens (or parent/parents) permission.
I have tried to get the editors of myballard to respond, but they seem more interested in untasteful reporting. Show your child's picture instead.
God Bless Kevin Daniel Black, his aunt and godmother.
Please remove the girls photos today.
If Mr. Black was passing a van, how is it the vehicle struck him? He seems to have struck the van. The van is not evil, nor is the driver. The driver of the van is a victim of Mr. Blacks carelessness.
I think the double yellow at the site prohibits passing. Bike lanes do not increase bike safety, they make travel more dangerous,if a car door opens from the parking lane, where is the cyclist to go… there used to be two lanes each way, 8 ft at least before 24th was reduced to one way each for bikes or vehicles Market to NW 65 St and up. If Mr. Black swerved out of the bike land into the motorized vehicle lane, isn't he the one making an unsafe lane change i.e. the van was ahead of him making a legal u-turn. PS pollution from cars, trucks, buses and other internal combustions engines is bad to inhale.
SMC 11.53.020 Driving on right side of roadway —
Exceptions.
A. Upon all roadways of sufficient width, but less than four (4)
lanes, a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway,
except as follows:
1. When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same
direction under the rules governing such movement;
2. When an obstruction exists making it necessary to drive to the left
of the centerline of the roadway: Provided, that any person so doing
shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles traveling in the proper
direction upon the unobstructed portion of the roadway within such
distance as to constitute an immediate hazard;
SMC 11.53.200 Overtaking other traffic on the left.
The operator of a vehicle overtaking other traffic proceeding in the
same direction shall pass to the left of such overtaken vehicle at a
safe distance and shall not again drive to the right side of the
roadway until safely clear of the overtaken traffic. (RCW
46.61.110(1))
Also following too close or too close for conditions may apply under negligent driving. “driving in a manner that could or does endanger persons or property>” and reckless if it was intentional. “
The impact and debris are in the northbound lanes of 24th, ..How did the van drag the bike and Mr. Black from the S/B lanes, bike or motorized lane over tens of feet to that point as show in the Kiro video still shot.
I am a cyclist and I think sharrows and bike lanes are not truly in the safety interest of cyclists. Been riding since 1960's tens of thousands of accident free miles and cringe at what a lot of my fellow cyclist do while riding.
It is truly regrettable Mr. Blacks actions seem to put him violating several traffic laws and common sense riding guidelines mortally injuring himself and causing his family, friends and community others so much sorrow and grief.