Hope the cyclist heals up fast. I was interested in the lanugage used in both stories, neither using “accident” to remove agency/responsibility. “Hit” and “Collision” were used, I wonder if this is a permanent paradigm shift.
I would sure like to see a reconstruction analysis of that situation. IIRC there is no street in the area with a speed limit over 25. Who was going where, going how fast, in what lane, with stop signs in both directions, will be interesting to explain.
California, I believe, has a speed limit of 30. The PG, however, says this was “near the intersection of Shadeland Avenue and Harbison Street”, which places it at or near the north end of the Shadeland viaduct over Woods Run; the picture on the PG article showing the bike on a house’s lawn matches perfectly with Streetview’s image of the house on Harbison just to the left (facing south) of the bridge.
Shadeland is 25mph there and has a stop sign in both directions at the intersection, but the bridge is long and open, and the approach from the north is downhill.
Just noticed: the Trib’s headline and article has been revised to say that the truck hit the cyclist; the PG still says the rider “collided with” the truck.
My original thought was that the cyclist must have popped out from between cars, but after learning more, I suspect the cyclist might have been crossing Shadeland from either Harbison or Stokes. The southbound truck driver reacted too slowly, ended up swerving to right or to left, and ended up down the hill.
That said, there is parking on both sides of Shadeland, and sight distance from the north is not good. The four way stop at the intersection pretty much suggests that SOMEONE ran a stop sign, or was being more than a little inattentive.