A 32-year-old man was killed after he was struck by a Nissan Pathfinder while riding his bicycle on Alma School Road near Guadalupe Road late Saturday.
The bicyclist, identified as Daniel Everlove, was pronounced dead at the scene after the Pathfinder driven by Levi Chappel struck his chopper bicycle at the intersection about 11 p.m.
The Pathfinder crashed into Everlove as Everlove was eastbound on the north sidewalk adjacent to Guadalupe and attempting to cross Alma School. Everlove was thrown from his bicycle.
Impairment or speed were not identified as factors in the crash, but Chappel was cited for failure to yield at an intersection, police said.
Dale Whiting posted at 2:52 pm on Mon, Jan 23, 2012.
Daniel Everlove was eastbound on the north sidewalk adjacent to Guadalupe and attempting to cross Alma School. This means that although he was east bound on the west bound side of Guadalupe, being in the pedestrian crosswalk, he had the right of way visa vis the Pathfinder driven by Levi Chappel. Being about 11 p.m. it was dark. Apparently Levi was turning left to go northbound on Alma School. It's not clear whether he had been east or west bound on Guadalupe before the turn.
Vehicles turning must yield to pedestrians. And bicyclists are treated as pedestrians when in the pedestrian cross walk. Bicycliest must yield to pedestrians in crosswalks and sidewalks.
Levi will be sued for the wrongful death of Daniel by those who are suffering from loss due to his death. Most 32 year old men have family to support. However this man bicycling somewhere, perhaps home from work, probably was not able to provide much support to anyone. There will be two families suffering from this tragedy, Daniel Everlove's family and Levi Chappel's family.
Masterrogue666 posted at 4:19 pm on Mon, Jan 23, 2012.
It's true that two families are going to suffer because of this, but I see the same thing occur almost daily.
I'm not sure what happened to my first entry, but it was similar to Dale's except for a few things. Like Dale said, at 11 pm it's dark. I believe that if you ride a bike at night, you are required to have a light mounted on the bike. It doesn't state if the bike had a light or not.
AZ statues aren't too clear, and city statues also need to be checked. Technically bikes are considered motor vehicles when ON THE ROAD. Therefore, when they are on the road, they are suppose to go with the flow of traffic. I have no doubt that Everlove rode off the sidewalk into the crosswalk, going against the flow of traffic, which is technically illegal. The crosswalk is for pedestrians. So, by law, if Everlove wanted to use the crosswalk, he should have stopped the bike, dismount, and walked through the crosswalk. Granted, it sounds ridiculous, but had he done that, I think he'd be alive today.
I may not be 100% correct, but I know I'm not 100% wrong either. Personally, I'd fight the ticket. I know of a similar accident (it happened to a co-worker). That Mesa Officer said that the bicyclist was wrong. Pehaps some law can be made to help get rid of the grey areas in order to save some lives....
KD1SHOE posted at 8:16 pm on Mon, Jan 23, 2012.
Dan Everlove was a great man. At this point both families are dealing with this tragic loss. Pointing fingers, who's right, who's wrong is just not what the friends, family and loved ones need to see at this point and time. Although everyone's opinions matter, please don't jump to conclusions or assume Dan was at fault. This was a horrible accident and like I said BOTH families are hurting right now. I know that Dan Everlove's is. Unless you were there, please keep the negative comments to yourself. Thank you. Rest in Peace Dan! You will be greatly and sadly missed forever, and never forgotten. [sad][sad][sad]
az2008 posted at 2:49 pm on Tue, Jan 24, 2012.
@masterrogue, Mesa's laws (Sec. 10-1-16) require a light on the front, but only a red reflector on the rear.[1]
Tempe has a similar requirement, however it also requires riding on the right side of the street, and says bicyclists are to yield to traffic before riding off a sidewalk and into a crosswalk.[2] It looks like Mesa doesn't require this. (Tempe's requirement seems common sense since I don't believe it's fair for drivers to be surprised by fast moving objects entering their path, perhaps from an unexpected direction.).
I don't know how this may relate to this accident, but I think a large part of the problem is riders who don't know the laws. I ride *a lot* and I see a lot of riders who make me cringe. Riding at night without any lights. Riding on the wrong side of the street (with no sense of having an obligation to yield to perpendicular traffic). Riders with iPad headphones stuck in their ears, oblivious to what's going on around them.
[1] http://mesaaz.gov/clerk/CodeBook/CodeinPDF/T10/T10Ch1.pdf
[2] http://www.tempe.gov/citycode/07bicycles.htm
Note: This page has links to municipal laws for Phoenix and east valley cities: http://www.garagebikeshop.com/resources/#laws
az2008 posted at 2:56 pm on Tue, Jan 24, 2012.
@Dale wrote: "Vehicles turning must yield to pedestrians. And bicyclists are treated as pedestrians when in the pedestrian cross walk. Bicycliest must yield to pedestrians in crosswalks and sidewalks."
I don't think it's as simple as that. Pedestrians move at 3 MPH. When a right-turning driver begins to execute his turn he has a reasonable expectation that pedestrians didn't suddenly place themselves in front of his vehicle *since he last looked 8 seconds ago*.
The problem with bikes (riding against traffic) is that they *can* place themselves in front of a right-turning vehicle just 2-3 seconds after a driver looked. I saw it happen before my very eyes 4-5 months ago.
This why most cities require bikes to ride on the same side of the street as the flow of traffic, and why Tempe requires bikes to yield to vehicles entering an intersection.
Even if Mesa doesn't have either of these common-sense laws, it's still just plain irresponsible to ride against traffic (at 10-20 MPH) *and* assume drivers are going to see you like a 3-MPH pedestrian. Anyone who's spent any amount of time driving knows that's not a reasonable position to take.
Masterrogue666 posted at 10:14 pm on Tue, Jan 24, 2012.
KD1SHOE: This website exists so people can express their viewpoint. I'm curious as to what I stated can be viewed as negative. I didn't blame anyone, especially since there's no information as to what the motorist had done before the accident occurred. As my last sentence stated, my wish is to save lives.
az2008: Thanks for the info. I couldn't find it right away. I found blog sites that contradicted each other. I think Tempe's law should be a state law. The problem is that there's no "driver licenses" for bikes, so there's no way to warn them about the risks. You are right about vehicles making a right turn, and the bicyclist that rides against traffic.
I almost ran over a kid once in a similar manner. I stopped at the light, looked left, right, and then left again and started pulling out. All of a sudden I saw a blur of color zip by. My reaction was to hit my brake. As my car was coming to a stop, a second bicyclist zipped in front of my car. Luckily, the car's bumper barely tapped his bike. Had I "gunned" my engine to pull out, that bicyclist probably would have died. Turns out that a telephone pole and bus stand obscured their approach when I checked to right.
Another incident involved one of two Mormon Missionaries. However, they were on the correct side of the road, and headed in the correct direction. The speed limit was 25 MPH, which my car could maintain once reached. For no real reason, I started to get a vibe about the lead bicyclist, and moved my foot from above the gas pedal to above the brake pedal. My speed did not change. Then, with no warning or signal, he made a left turn about 10 feet in front of me. Had I not moved my foot, I have no doubt my car would have run him over before I could have gotten stopped. Luckily (again), his bike took most the damage (as he lifted his leg before contact). The front valance of my car was also damaged. Because of the damage, I called the Police. He was cited (and his buddy asked him why he made the turn when he did!). I also found out that Morman missionaries have insurance paid for by the church!
I have no problem sharing the road, as I too ride a bike from time to time. One one thing I've made sure my daughter knows is that it's easier for her to a car, than it is for that car's driver to see her. I also told her that if she uses a crosswalk, then she must walk.
az2008 posted at 11:38 am on Wed, Jan 25, 2012.
@masterrogue wrote: "One one thing I've made sure my daughter knows is that it's easier for her to a car, than it is for that car's driver to see her. "
Your warning is definitely true, but it's also true that many drivers will take "liberties" when they know a rider sees them. What I do is keep my head down but be *very* observant without actually looking like I'm observant. My eyes shift around, not my head. This helps avoid the problem with drivers who will take the right of way when they know I see them and obviously won't assert my right of way when the risks are *so* imbalanced.
I don't like riding like that. I prefer to make eye contact, give a nod of thanks, a small wave. I'd like to be more friendly. But, too often that's construed as "he sees me... I can complete my left turn." I have to keep my head down and be covertly observant just to keep the drivers respectful of my rights.
I agree with you, many of the city laws should be state laws. It's difficult to keep track of the various regulations.
I like Tempe's law about yielding to traffic when crossing a roadway (while riding on a sidewalk or crosswalk, see Sec. 7-52-d). However, there's a point where it's not entirely clear who has the right of way. On the one hand, once you're in the crosswalk, you have the right of way. On the other hand, there's a period of time when a vehicle is *entering* the crosswalk that they should be relatively secure in their right to occupy it without someone darting into it.
I talked to someone at Tempe about it. They said they recognize the ambiguity about when the rider/pedestrian's right of way begins. That the law is just intended to recognize that a rider's right isn't absolute. You can't dart into the crosswalk at 25 MPH and insist "but I was in the crosswalk!"
Another interesting law is Tempe's 7-53 which says vehicles crossing a sidewalk are required to yield to pedestrians and riders. Unlike 7-72-d, it doesn't say riders must equally yield.
I see that problem *a lot*. Cars whiz out of shopping centers onto the sidewalk, often stopping on the sidewalk, blocking it. This is a case where drivers are clearly at fault (in Tempe anyway). Drivers are required to be more cautious before crossing the sidewalk. And, they should back up to clear the sidewalk if a rider approaches.
noplanB2012 posted at 7:13 pm on Wed, Jan 25, 2012.
who's right or who's wrong is not the issue. i knew Dan for a short time. he will be miss, like many different people can all relate to. Dan had those quick one liners to make you laugh. stories to to crack your ribs an all around likable man. everyone knows one. R.I.P. Dan you will be remembered .[smile]
Masterrogue666 posted at 2:48 am on Thu, Jan 26, 2012.
noplanB2012: Neither I or az2008 are trying to "blame" anyone, save the system, since it's many laws contradict each other.
az2008 posted at 10:34 am on Thu, Jan 26, 2012.
noplanb, I don't know what all the factors were. But, from my own experience riding a bike about 10 miles every day, often at night, riding against traffic (while legal in Mesa) is just asking for trouble. Maybe the driver was texting, or in a hurry. But, I can't help but believe riding against traffic didn't *exacerbate* the problem.
To me, this is an opportunity to remind riders that it's very dangerous to ride against traffic. And, drivers: Mesa (for some strange reason) chooses to let fast moving objects enter your path from any direction.