Video: Trolley tracks may have contributed to death of bike rider

The police report blames the tracks. Read it here: http://bit.ly/djzDnI

Thank you for elaborating, sir.

Well, I don't believe that advice to be very wellreceived given that this area was intended to bea premier gateway into downtown."Hey, you bikes...you go around and come inthe back door."What new facility has created an equivalent hazardfor cars requiring a several mile detour.....things aresupposed to be designed and engineered for practicaluse.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 hazardas it pertains to prior, established use thatthe city doesn't get. Giving something backhas not been part of the plan when somethingwas taken away. The attitude is, "We'll justfix it."This intersection illustrates that pretty well asit seems those who do lines and signs weregiven the task to make it usably safe. I'd bepretty PO'ed if that was my job.

Please, explain what it is you mean by hazard creation restriction.

Maybe the city needs a 'hazard creation'restriction on their license.

If you do not feel you can cross the tracks correctly there are other bike routes to take.

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.

The police report blames the tracks. Read it here: http://bit.ly/djzDnI

Thank you for elaborating, sir.

Well, I don't believe that advice to be very wellreceived given that this area was intended to bea premier gateway into downtown."Hey, you bikes...you go around and come inthe back door."What new facility has created an equivalent hazardfor cars requiring a several mile detour.....things aresupposed to be designed and engineered for practicaluse.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 hazardas it pertains to prior, established use thatthe city doesn't get. Giving something backhas not been part of the plan when somethingwas taken away. The attitude is, "We'll justfix it."This intersection illustrates that pretty well asit seems those who do lines and signs weregiven the task to make it usably safe. I'd bepretty PO'ed if that was my job.

Please, explain what it is you mean by hazard creation restriction.

Maybe the city needs a 'hazard creation'restriction on their license.

If you do not feel you can cross the tracks correctly there are other bike routes to take.

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.

Riders really don't have the option to cross thetracks any way but incorrectly at that location.And in many locations.Lane changes are a common traffic maneuverat that location...even directed by trafficcontrol.There could be 'use caution signs' every sixfeet along that extended section.It is disingenuous to refer to the tracks as acontributing factor.They are a catalyst.It's the addition of the tracks, it appears, thatresulted in a death rather than anything else.

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..

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.

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.

It depends entirely on who you are talking to. Some are helpful, some are not helpful at all.

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.

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.

It depends entirely on who you are talking to. Some are helpful, some are not helpful at all.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

Red Star, It was 5 am (not pm) that's before sunrise.

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...

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...

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.

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.

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.

Red Star, It was 5 am (not pm) that's before sunrise.

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...