A 71-year-old bicyclist was killed on Saturday evening while riding across Golf Links Road east of Kolb Road.
According to a press release by the Tucson Police Department the 71-year-old male was attempting to ride south across Kolb Road when he was struck by a driver heading west on Golf Links Road.
The cyclist was taken to a hospital where he later died.
The driver stayed at the scene and drugs and alcohol did not appear to be a contributing factor.
No details about speed were provided. The bicyclist was not wearing a helmet.
The cyclist was the second bicyclist killed in Tucson this year and matches the number of cyclists killed in 2012.
Before I get any comments. I include whether or not the cyclist was wearing a helmet because it is an extra piece of information some readers care about.
By law cyclists do not have to wear a helmet if they are over 16 years of age. It is impossible to know if a helmet would have helped in this or any crash and not wearing a helmet is not an assignment of blame on this website.
MikeMcKisson
Mike, I agree with your statement above. It seems very reasonable to me.
What other possibly irrelevant things wasn’t he wearing?
Putting aside the complex and controversial helmet issue in all its aspects, it would be interesting to read the actual TPD report in this case and others. Red Star is not aware of media ever obtaining and providing such a report to readers.
Going by nsn, the call was dispatched at 6:28 p.m. in the Dietz neighborhood:
http://nsn.soaz.info/incidents/zdietz.html
The TPD case number is 1310050345
3wheeler MikeMcKisson It’s really only relevant if drivers are conditioned to seeing helmets.
I can’t believe the first comments are about helmets. The guy was hit by a westbound car just before sundown a week past the equinox. Westbound drivers under those conditions are lucky they don’t run into busses, let alone cyclists or pedestrians.
We all need to take extra care with low sun aligned with the roads we’re on. (I break the rules and ride sidewalk then. I’ll risk the ticket to stay alive.) The cyclist broke rule #1: Assume they can’t see you.
Hurri47 Essentially agree. The sunrise and sunset times can be killers in the Old Pueblo for cyclists, peds, and motorists alike. The first thing Red Star wondered was where was the Sun in all this? Meaning the police report/investigation is all the more important…
I think all media understand the inference general readership makes when reporting the absence of helmets. Continuing to make helmet statements without relevant facts on head injury is de facto misleading journalism. I think it’s a not-so-fuzzy area when a writer makes a statement, omitting pertinent. related facts, and ‘says’ draw your own conclusion. People may ask what kind of bike it was, but should it be reported if relevancy cannot be established.
Mike’s disclaimer is the first I’ve seen and is welcomed, but still making helmet mention propagates the assumption of blame.
@zz 3wheeler MikeMcKisson
What do you mean, zz?
MikeMcKisson I appreciate the information, although I don’t rely upon it to draw the conclusion to assume the person died due to a head injury that would have been prevented with a helmet.
@Jill MikeMcKisson why I despise the helmet reference is it encourages people to ignore the overarching issue similarly to the not in a marked crosswalk references in pedestrian deaths. We’ve surrounded our neighborhoods with rivers of death in the format of multi-laned roadways filled with automobiles. Until this one basic thing changes we will continue to have cyclist/pedestrian deaths.
3wheeler MikeMcKisson If drivers are looking for helmets as an indication of cyclists’ presence, then not wearing one is relevant to the occurrence of the crash.
When you read articles about rollover accidents in cars they always mention whether or not the person was wearing a seatbelt. This is a significant factor in whether or not you survive a rollover. The helmet bike thing isn’t but it’s presented in the same way and the readers read it with similar significance. Which is not to say anything about Mike’s including the information but more about me realising why including the helmet lack or presnece annoys me so much. It’s pretty much a non sequitur especially when viewed with the myriad other factors contributing to cyclists deaths in this country.