The Tucson Police Department pavement markings related to the death of Dennis McKinney, 47, who was killed while riding his motorized bike on Congress near Toole, were still clearly visible Tuesday afternoon.
The police department’s records division is only open Monday, Wednesday and Friday so the police report wasn’t available yesterday, but the pavement markings seem to indicate the trolley tracks may have played a part in the crash.
Bicycle attorney Eric Post has analyzed all of the police reports related to bicycle crashes in the last few years and said after viewing photos of the scene sent to him by Tucson Velo, that the markings were not something he had seen in other fatality reports.
“We pulled all of the fatality reports that we have from 2007 through the end of ’09,” Post said. “There were seven fatalities in that two-and-a-half year period involving bicyclists. Not one of the reports had this kind of workup in it.”
According to Post, without having the police report from this latest fatality to compare the markings to, it is difficult to determine the circumstances, but that it looks like the trolley tracks may have caused McKinney to lose control of his bike.
“From what I have seen so far it looks like he got caught in the tracks and went down in front of a car,” Post said.
The first markings on the pavement are on the inside of the trolley track. (See photo at the top of this post.)
Erik Ryberg, who is also an attorney representing Tucson cyclists, wrote in a recent blog entry that from the markings on the street it appears the tracks contributed to the crash.
Trolley tracks and the intersection in question have been a source of concern for members of the Tucson Pima County Bicycle Advisory Committee. Look for a follow up post about the tracks.
In the meantime, check out the rest of the images and video from the crash scene.
A decoding of the hieroglyphs in the photos would help. Media reports say the motorized cyclist and motorist were westbound, so the blinding morning sun should not have been a factor. Has this been verified? Other than local Fox Channel 11, has anyone interviewed COT's Jim Glock on whether cyclists in congested and otherwise unnecessarily dangerous situations, should be separated from vehicles?
Finally, we shall see how long it takes Tucson's toy train to collide with a car…
Red Star, It was 5 am (not pm) that's before sunrise.
Apparently Ed was an eyewitness: he knows exactly what time the unfortunate event occurred and which direction the motorized cyclist and motorist were headed. Ed knows what the motorized cyclist was attempting. Ed knows all this with certainty and Red Star was wrong to *provisionally* rule out sun-blinding as a factor based on unverified media reports that the parties were headed west, in the morning.
No need to be snippy about it, the time of day and direction of travel were both included in the media reports on the wreck from earlier this week. The existence or not of the trolley tracks was not mentioned in any MSM reports.
Went down to the police station and requested the report. Apparently only half of it is finished. I'll keep calling to see when it is ready.
Indeed, John Clary. These things come down to the police reports, not media reports, not those who position themselves as witnesses when they are not. Apparently some in media are making a conscientious effort to obtain police reports…
A decoding of the hieroglyphs in the photos would help. Media reports say the motorized cyclist and motorist were westbound, so the blinding morning sun should not have been a factor. Has this been verified? Other than local Fox Channel 11, has anyone interviewed COT's Jim Glock on whether cyclists in congested and otherwise unnecessarily dangerous situations, should be separated from vehicles?
Finally, we shall see how long it takes Tucson's toy train to collide with a car…
Red Star, It was 5 am (not pm) that's before sunrise.
Apparently Ed was an eyewitness: he knows exactly what time the unfortunate event occurred and which direction the motorized cyclist and motorist were headed. Ed knows what the motorized cyclist was attempting. Ed knows all this with certainty and Red Star was wrong to *provisionally* rule out sun-blinding as a factor based on unverified media reports that the parties were headed west, in the morning.
No need to be snippy about it, the time of day and direction of travel were both included in the media reports on the wreck from earlier this week. The existence or not of the trolley tracks was not mentioned in any MSM reports.
Went down to the police station and requested the report. Apparently only half of it is finished. I'll keep calling to see when it is ready.
Indeed, John Clary. These things come down to the police reports, not media reports, not those who position themselves as witnesses when they are not. Apparently some in media are making a conscientious effort to obtain police reports…
Just out of curiousity, is the Tuscon PD helpful at all?! I'm a family member and they were extremely rude to me when I called to get information. I deal with this kind of thing everyday due to being in law enforcement and it's a terrible thing to see, let alone when it's a family member.
It depends entirely on who you are talking to. Some are helpful, some are not helpful at all.
To Mr. McKinney's family member above — try to get straight through to the records section. Those folks are much more agreeable, particularly if you start right off with “I am a family member of a man who was killed in a motor-vehicle accident last week” and then ask how you can go about getting the report.
They will be way more helpful than the switchboard folks and way more easy to reach than the officers who were at the scene. Once you get the report (you might sweet-talk them into faxing it to you, particularly if you let on you are also in law enforcement) you can start calling the officers, if you wish.
Best of luck and my condolences for your loss.
Just out of curiousity, is the Tuscon PD helpful at all?! I'm a family member and they were extremely rude to me when I called to get information. I deal with this kind of thing everyday due to being in law enforcement and it's a terrible thing to see, let alone when it's a family member.
It depends entirely on who you are talking to. Some are helpful, some are not helpful at all.
To Mr. McKinney's family member above — try to get straight through to the records section. Those folks are much more agreeable, particularly if you start right off with “I am a family member of a man who was killed in a motor-vehicle accident last week” and then ask how you can go about getting the report.
They will be way more helpful than the switchboard folks and way more easy to reach than the officers who were at the scene. Once you get the report (you might sweet-talk them into faxing it to you, particularly if you let on you are also in law enforcement) you can start calling the officers, if you wish.
Best of luck and my condolences for your loss.
Ok, My guess on the Paint locations.
BF (Bicycle Front)
BR (Bicycle Rear) *Where the bike came to a stop after everything happened.*
C1 (Crossing area)
SC (Scratch)
A1 (Vehicle tire skid)
B1 (Vehicle tire skid)
BS (Bicycle Struck)
VF (Victim found)
VH (Victim hit)
These are my Personal guesses on the locations marked.
They will take everything into consideration in this situation. That however will not change the outcome of the situation. If in fact the guy did not cross the tracks correctly, It is unfortunate that he had to pay for this mistake with his life.
I took a ride there myself and ran area 5 times. The tracks at the C1 marks have a gap large enough to catch a 2.10 tire. The Car skid marks were approximately 40ft long. It took place on a downhill slope. In my opinion, the car tracks are short enough and start soon enough to say the car acted in a reasonable amount of time. The vehicle tracks remain in the lane until the last few feet.
I believe there is a sign that says bicycles cross with caution on the left side just before the accident.. Maybe we just need to have a bicycle riding course.. get a bicycle endorsement on our license to prove we competent to ride a bicycle in public. Many people make the mistake of crossing the tracks incorrectly.. He just made it at a unfortunate time and place. It does not mean the city should be punished or the trolley for that matter.
The tracks were not the whole cause of the accident, they were a contributing factor. There are many ways he could have lost control of his bike. He could have been traveling at an unsafe speed to safely cross the tracks, also he could have been signaling while crossing the tracks which would increase the risk of his control loss.
Cars do however Commonly drive threw this area at a higher than posted speed which also could have been a contributing factor..
Ok, My guess on the Paint locations.
BF (Bicycle Front)
BR (Bicycle Rear) *Where the bike came to a stop after everything happened.*
C1 (Crossing area)
SC (Scratch)
A1 (Vehicle tire skid)
B1 (Vehicle tire skid)
BS (Bicycle Struck)
VF (Victim found)
VH (Victim hit)
These are my Personal guesses on the locations marked.
They will take everything into consideration in this situation. That however will not change the outcome of the situation. If in fact the guy did not cross the tracks correctly, It is unfortunate that he had to pay for this mistake with his life.
I took a ride there myself and ran area 5 times. The tracks at the C1 marks have a gap large enough to catch a 2.10 tire. The Car skid marks were approximately 40ft long. It took place on a downhill slope. In my opinion, the car tracks are short enough and start soon enough to say the car acted in a reasonable amount of time. The vehicle tracks remain in the lane until the last few feet.
I believe there is a sign that says bicycles cross with caution on the left side just before the accident.. Maybe we just need to have a bicycle riding course.. get a bicycle endorsement on our license to prove we competent to ride a bicycle in public. Many people make the mistake of crossing the tracks incorrectly.. He just made it at a unfortunate time and place. It does not mean the city should be punished or the trolley for that matter.
The tracks were not the whole cause of the accident, they were a contributing factor. There are many ways he could have lost control of his bike. He could have been traveling at an unsafe speed to safely cross the tracks, also he could have been signaling while crossing the tracks which would increase the risk of his control loss.
Cars do however Commonly drive threw this area at a higher than posted speed which also could have been a contributing factor..
Riders really don't have the option to cross the
tracks any way but incorrectly at that location.
And in many locations.
Lane changes are a common traffic maneuver
at that location…even directed by traffic
control.
There could be 'use caution signs' every six
feet along that extended section.
It is disingenuous to refer to the tracks as a
contributing factor.
They are a catalyst.
It's the addition of the tracks, it appears, that
resulted in a death rather than anything else.
I should have kept my response a little more relevant. Yes, they will be taking the tracks into consideration.
However Coghauler, When a sign says cross with caution and it is a well known rule of thumb for all cyclists with tracks, It means slow to a speed safe to cross and then cross, and when it is safe to do so. If he/she has to sit in the bike lane for half an hour to do so, it is what has to be done.
I crossed the tracks myself safely all five times at the C1 location with speeds between 5 and 20mph without worrying about being hit by a car or losing control. It is a matter of taking caution, using common sense.
If you do not feel you can cross the tracks correctly there are other bike routes to take.
Maybe the city needs a 'hazard creation'
restriction on their license.
Please, explain what it is you mean by hazard creation restriction.
Well, I don't believe that advice to be very well
received given that this area was intended to be
a premier gateway into downtown.
“Hey, you bikes…you go around and come in
the back door.”
What new facility has created an equivalent hazard
for cars requiring a several mile detour…..things are
supposed to be designed and engineered for practical
use.
Those tracks are not there inadvertently.
You and I will cross them hundreds and
maybe thousands of times without incident.
I believe that has the city a bit perplexed.
It's the deliberate introduction of the hazard
as it pertains to prior, established use that
the city doesn't get. Giving something back
has not been part of the plan when something
was taken away. The attitude is, “We'll just
fix it.”
This intersection illustrates that pretty well as
it seems those who do lines and signs were
given the task to make it usably safe. I'd be
pretty PO'ed if that was my job.
Thank you for elaborating, sir.
The police report blames the tracks. Read it here: http://bit.ly/djzDnI
I should have kept my response a little more relevant. Yes, they will be taking the tracks into consideration.
However Coghauler, When a sign says cross with caution and it is a well known rule of thumb for all cyclists with tracks, It means slow to a speed safe to cross and then cross, and when it is safe to do so. If he/she has to sit in the bike lane for half an hour to do so, it is what has to be done.
I crossed the tracks myself safely all five times at the C1 location with speeds between 5 and 20mph without worrying about being hit by a car or losing control. It is a matter of taking caution, using common sense.
If you do not feel you can cross the tracks correctly there are other bike routes to take.
Maybe the city needs a 'hazard creation'
restriction on their license.
Please, explain what it is you mean by hazard creation restriction.
Well, I don't believe that advice to be very well
received given that this area was intended to be
a premier gateway into downtown.
“Hey, you bikes…you go around and come in
the back door.”
What new facility has created an equivalent hazard
for cars requiring a several mile detour…..things are
supposed to be designed and engineered for practical
use.
Those tracks are not there inadvertently.
You and I will cross them hundreds and
maybe thousands of times without incident.
I believe that has the city a bit perplexed.
It's the deliberate introduction of the hazard
as it pertains to prior, established use that
the city doesn't get. Giving something back
has not been part of the plan when something
was taken away. The attitude is, “We'll just
fix it.”
This intersection illustrates that pretty well as
it seems those who do lines and signs were
given the task to make it usably safe. I'd be
pretty PO'ed if that was my job.
Thank you for elaborating, sir.
The police report blames the tracks. Read it here: http://bit.ly/djzDnI