5 bicyclists killed in truck crash on US 95 near Seachlight, NV

[Bruce]

https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/local-nevada/5-bicyclists-killed-4-others-injured-in-crash-involving-truck-2212306/

A box truck hit a group of cyclists on US 95 who were being accompanied by a safety vehicle/spotter on the Nipton Loop.

Just awful.

[Max Rockatansky]

Saw that on my news feed this morning, this is the exact reason I don't like cycling or running on roads like US 95 (which I believe is 70 MPH speed limit where the accident occurred).  Any word on what speed the box truck was going when the impact occurred?  I've been hit by a car at 25 MPH and that was enough to mangle me pretty badly, I can't imagine what a box truck going way faster would do.

[seicer]

I am suspecting the driver was impaired. The cyclists were on the (very generous) shoulder ahead of another vehicle that was following them (spotter).

I don't see it hardly at all in my neck of the woods, but cyclists were frequent along the expressways and high-speed roads around Austin, Texas when I was down there for work. I took my racing bike down and did a few rides and was pleasantly surprised at how nice it was along the shoulders that were cleaned on a regular basis.

[US 89]

Saw that on my news feed this morning, this is the exact reason I don’t like cycling or running on roads like US 95 (which I believe is 70 MPH speed limit where the accident occurred).  Any word on what speed the box truck was going when the impact occurred?  I’ve been hit by a car at 25 MPH and that was enough to mangle me pretty badly, I can’t imagine what a box truck going way faster would do.

Article claims the speed limit on that part of 95 is 75 mph.

But yeah, I saw this last night on the Salt Lake local news, but they didn't describe how the crash happened. After reading the Review-Journal article...that's just horrible.

I am suspecting the driver was impaired. The cyclists were on the (very generous) shoulder ahead of another vehicle that was following them (spotter).

What caused the truck to hit the cyclists was under investigation Thursday, but Smaka, the Highway Patrol trooper, said impairment was not suspected, and the uninjured truck driver was cooperating with investigators.

[Kniwt]

Article claims the speed limit on that part of 95 is 75 mph.

Correct. I've bicycled that part of US 95 several times. The shoulder is indeed freeway-quality, but it can also get stupidly windy out there. (Lightable dust storm warning signs are posted in the area.) It sounds like the wind came up yesterday morning, although I haven't seen the direction mentioned. If it was a crosswind, a panel truck could've theoretically been blown onto the shoulder. (Although one could make the case that, in such conditions, the truck driver should have moved to the left lane to pass the cyclists.)

[Sub-Urbanite]

I'm no huge fan of "road diets" in urban areas to add bike paths. But in areas like this, when they went to the expense of making US 95 4 lanes, why not have a dedicated pot of money for a separated bikeway?

I mean, I know the answer because I live in Oregon: Because requirements to add bike paths raise project costs so much as to make road projects prohibitive. I just hate that our infrastructure financing is so strapped that we can't afford to have all the nice things.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm no huge fan of "road diets" in urban areas to add bike paths. But in areas like this, when they went to the expense of making US 95 4 lanes, why not have a dedicated pot of money for a separated bikeway?

I mean, I know the answer because I live in Oregon: Because requirements to add bike paths raise project costs so much as to make road projects prohibitive. I just hate that our infrastructure financing is so strapped that we can't afford to have all the nice things.

Really I don't think much consideration went into how many cyclists would use US 95 between Boulder City and Searchlight during the Post-9/11 expansion.  The shoulders on US 95 are incredibly generous and neat Interstate standards.  Something obviously didn't go right with the box truck but this is also a route inherently not designed for cycling.  That circles back to my original thought on why I avoid high speed roads like this myself when I do distance cycling.

[skluth]

I'm no huge fan of "road diets" in urban areas to add bike paths. But in areas like this, when they went to the expense of making US 95 4 lanes, why not have a dedicated pot of money for a separated bikeway?

I mean, I know the answer because I live in Oregon: Because requirements to add bike paths raise project costs so much as to make road projects prohibitive. I just hate that our infrastructure financing is so strapped that we can't afford to have all the nice things.

That's more common in the Midwest and Northeast. E.g., Wisconsin recently upgraded WI 26 and built a parallel bike path for much of its route. But these are expensive and often not well-used. I know when I only owned a bicycle (until I was 29) I would take side roads well away from major roads because part of the appeal is not seeing as many vehicles (and accompanying fumes). This isn't an option as you go further west as there are fewer alternative routes. I know if I were still cycling, I'd mostly use the Old WI 26 which runs parallel for much of the route because I'd breathe a lot fewer gas fumes despite the traffic passing a few feet away; the cleaner air and quieter ride would be worth the exchange.

[SectorZ]

I'm no huge fan of "road diets" in urban areas to add bike paths. But in areas like this, when they went to the expense of making US 95 4 lanes, why not have a dedicated pot of money for a separated bikeway?

I mean, I know the answer because I live in Oregon: Because requirements to add bike paths raise project costs so much as to make road projects prohibitive. I just hate that our infrastructure financing is so strapped that we can't afford to have all the nice things.

That's more common in the Midwest and Northeast. E.g., Wisconsin recently upgraded WI 26 and built a parallel bike path for much of its route. But these are expensive and often not well-used. I know when I only owned a bicycle (until I was 29) I would take side roads well away from major roads because part of the appeal is not seeing as many vehicles (and accompanying fumes). This isn't an option as you go further west as there are fewer alternative routes. I know if I were still cycling, I'd mostly use the Old WI 26 which runs parallel for much of the route because I'd breathe a lot fewer gas fumes despite the traffic passing a few feet away; the cleaner air and quieter ride would be worth the exchange.

That bike path there I would never use. You have to yield at every driveway and side street, you can see a chunk of driveways are dirt/gravel that you need to cross. I'd be much likelier to have accident on that trail than the road. Now, the fatality risk on the highway is a different beast entirely.

I guess living in New England I really don't have to worry about roads like this very much.

[jeffandnicole]

I am suspecting the driver was impaired. The cyclists were on the (very generous) shoulder ahead of another vehicle that was following them (spotter).

For those that read the article, the police have said the truck driver wasn't impaired, and that 7 bicyclists decided to ride *behind* the spotter vehicle.

Quote within the article:

"As a bicyclist, you could do everything absolutely correctly, and you could still be maimed or killed."

Except, the bicyclists didn't do everything correctly.  Getting behind a spotter vehicle which is presumably positioned for the bicyclists' safety put them in a very hazardous position.

[seicer]

That can be common if there are slower and faster packs - which this seems to be the case of based on https://www.8newsnow.com/news/local-news/details-emerge-about-those-in-deadly-crash-involving-cyclists-box-truck/. I've been in plenty of cycling races and packs where people were split into several groups. Sometimes you can't have enough spotters out there for everyone. It's not illegal to split up.

Still doesn't excuse a truck swerving into the shoulder and killing the cyclists.

[Rothman]

I am suspecting the driver was impaired. The cyclists were on the (very generous) shoulder ahead of another vehicle that was following them (spotter).

For those that read the article, the police have said the truck driver wasn't impaired, and that 7 bicyclists decided to ride *behind* the spotter vehicle.

Quote within the article:

"As a bicyclist, you could do everything absolutely correctly, and you could still be maimed or killed."

Except, the bicyclists didn't do everything correctly.  Getting behind a spotter vehicle which is presumably positioned for the bicyclists' safety put them in a very hazardous position.

I don't see how this makes it the cyclists' fault.

[US 89]

I am suspecting the driver was impaired. The cyclists were on the (very generous) shoulder ahead of another vehicle that was following them (spotter).

For those that read the article, the police have said the truck driver wasn't impaired, and that 7 bicyclists decided to ride *behind* the spotter vehicle.

Quote within the article:

"As a bicyclist, you could do everything absolutely correctly, and you could still be maimed or killed."

Except, the bicyclists didn't do everything correctly.  Getting behind a spotter vehicle which is presumably positioned for the bicyclists' safety put them in a very hazardous position.

I don't see how this makes it the cyclists' fault.

When did he say that?

[Sub-Urbanite]

Update: The driver has been charged with DUI.

"Shortly after the fatal crash, a Nevada Highway Patrol spokesman said it appeared impairment was not an issue. But in a Clark County criminal complaint, prosecutors said methamphetamine and/or amphetamine was found in Barson's blood.

The complaint did not include extensive details of blood test results, but said "however slight" the drugs may have been, they rendered Barson "incapable of safely driving and/or exercising actual physical control of a vehicle."

Mixed feelings here. I have vivid memories of Jessica Williams, a driver who in 2000 killed six kids cleaning up litter on the side of I-15. She had smoked marijuana the night before, and Nevada law says that if you have any drugs in your system, you're guilty of DUI. She clearly was not stoned, but she still wound up spending 20 years in prison because she had 2 parts per billion of THC in her blood.

I don't know enough about meth to know whether someone who took meth the day before would A) still have meth in their system and B) have it affect them. But if it's anything like the Williams case, that guy is going to jail for a long time.

[seicer]

Amphetamine-type stimulants can be detected for up to 2 or 3 days, and while there are lawful stimulants (e.g. Adderall), there are illegal stimulants. If you are withdrawing from stimulants, you can nod off and fall asleep similar to narcolepsy at any time.

I'm generally leary on DUI checkpoints and some drug tests for the reason you stated - some drugs, such as marijuana, can stay in your system for a month or more, depending upon factors including body weight. It may not even impair you cognitively but there is not an accurate test to detect your ability to drive or function otherwise.

[jeffandnicole]

I am suspecting the driver was impaired. The cyclists were on the (very generous) shoulder ahead of another vehicle that was following them (spotter).

For those that read the article, the police have said the truck driver wasn't impaired, and that 7 bicyclists decided to ride *behind* the spotter vehicle.

Quote within the article:

"As a bicyclist, you could do everything absolutely correctly, and you could still be maimed or killed."

Except, the bicyclists didn't do everything correctly.  Getting behind a spotter vehicle which is presumably positioned for the bicyclists' safety put them in a very hazardous position.

I don't see how this makes it the cyclists' fault.

When did he say that?

People just like to imply stuff.

I certainly didn't say it made them responsible for the accident. But if you have a vehicle along for the ride for your safety as a buffer, use it properly. This is along the lines of a road construction crew having a crash truck before them. The goal is to have no accidents, but if there's going to be one, let the equipment take the hit, not the people.

Unfortunately in this instance the vehicle driver died also, but his existence saved everyone else's life who properly remained in front of the vehicle.

[Brian556]

I have noticed that people who use drugs are way more accident-prone than those who don't, even when they are not within the official time frame after use to be "high". When I worked i road maintenance and construction, over the years i had several co-workers that had a drug problem. All of them had on-the-job accidents even though it wasn't likely that they were using drugs on the job.