Any accident like this is truly unfortunate and the driver's behavior was not ethical. Fortunately the cyclist was not seriously injured. I am not a cyclist and I did not see the accident, but as an Altadena resident and driver, I am concerned about unsafe interactions I regularly see on the road between cycles and cars. Cars drive fast and drivers don't always pay attention to cycles, horses or others in the road who become their victims. At the same time, I frequently encounter cyclists who ride two abreast in traffic and do not accommodate faster cars by riding single file near the shoulder of the road, or who ride single file at a speed well below the limit, in the middle of the lane on a two-lane road (Altadena Drive) without observing traffic, making it difficult for cars to safely pass. I also see cyclists riding through pedestrian crosswalks and stoplights when cycles are really considered vehicles and must obey traffic signals. More dedicated bicycle lanes and a measure of common courtesy would accommodate everyone and make traffic safer, especially on Altadena Drive. Meanwhile, both cyclists and drivers need to be observant of each other and follow the law so that we can share the road safely and happily.

Hi Pivione, Not sure if this applies to the situations you describe or not... but the motor vehicle law allows bikes to occupy an entire lane, regardless of the bike's speed under certain conditions. The code says a bike may occupy an entire lane if there is not sufficient room for the bike and car to safely occupy the lane. Of course, this leaves some interpretation as to what "safe" means. For a cyclist, there may be potholes, glass, parked cars (who's door may open) or other debris on the shoulder making it unsafe. Also, the distance between the car's mirrors and cyclist is not specified, but the "3 FEET" law may be enacted soon.. so we may have some clarity there.
As a lifelong cyclist, I've seen my share of unprovoked road rage aimed at cyclists, and general ignorance by drivers as to the rights of cyclists on the road. And, like you, I have seen my share of cyclists with blatant disregard for the laws of the road. Both groups need to work together, because as congestion increases and cycling usage increases, the probability of conflict increases.

@Dinah - It looks like #3 covers what he is talking about.

Thanks Dinah for publishing and Dan for pointing out that Item #3 is indeed what I was referring to. You can see the ambiguity in the law even in statement a): which begs the question, what is "normal" speed... is it the posted speed limit? Is the prevailing speed of the traffic (which may be faster or slower than the posted limit)? This was part of the issue in the infamous Mandeville Canyon incident, where the cyclists were traveling at the speed limit, but the doctor in the car behind wanted to travel faster.
Anyway, all that said, I personally default to staying out of cars way as much as possible unless it is more dangerous for me to do so. Cars are big and I'm small.

@Dinah - True, it does not say anything about an entire lane, but it does say that the bicycle can move away from the right curb if the conditions are dangerous and it suggests that the cyclist may have to take up enough of the lane that it would block a car where it refers to lanes as being potentially "too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane."

I agree with True Freedom that as a practical matter, when I cycle, I try to stay out of the way of cars and let them pass unimpeded, but there are also cars who have no problem blowing by you within a few inches at full speed when you have to move away from the right curb a little to avoid a hazard. In that case, I'd rather be far enough out that the driver has to slow down and pull towards the middle of the road to avoid hitting me.

Most of the time the shoulder is wide enough that this scenario can be avoided, and I always try to ride on low-trafficked roads with wide shoulders as much as possible.

Cars drive way too fast on the streets around Altadena. in LA, too. I don't mind slowing down, taking two or even five minutes off my precious time to make sure bikers and walkers are safe. When I'm driving two tons of steel, I'm not going to challenge a neighbor who has zero protection, or worry whether he or she or they are X number of feet further in the lane than the law allows.

Deliberately impeding the flow of traffic by riding two or three abreast on a single lane road with a double yellow line is willfully negligent. Rider who do this are provocative and parse the law outside of its original intent in claiming privilege to do so. The intent is to keep traffic flowing at a reasonable pace in a safe manner. Expecting motor vehicles to drive behind bicycles at 12 mph for an indefinite period is wrong. Challenging them to overtake the bikes when it is forbidden is reckless behavior and should be cited by traffic authorities. Bike lobbies are overtaking the Pasadena city council. Turn on the tv at any time and there they are...upper middle class males with thousand dollar bikes and a big old agenda. There are citizens who cannot ride bikes yet need to get from one place to another. Bike riders must follow the law and be held liable for accidents they provoke.

@Dinah and @AnnaMaria212 - I'll grant that there are many cyclists who do not follow traffic laws, but I find it kind of surprising that you appear to be suggesting that in this case the cyclists caused this accident. You are making an assumption about where on the road these cyclists were riding, whether they were riding abreast of each other, etc. I think it is pretty telling the the driver who hit them drove off after the incident.

Remember not all cyclists are packs of spandexed middle-aged men on expensive bikes- I see parents and their kids out biking together, seniors trying to get exercise, and people trying to get to work.

And while as I said, I agree cyclists should follow the law, I would also like to see drivers follow the law and not endanger cyclists, pedestrians, and other drivers so frequently. Yesterday, for example, while trying to walk my bike across a pedestrian crosswalk, nobody would yield to me as they lawfully should. When I finally managed to start to cross traffic a driver stuck his head out the window and started screaming at me for holding up traffic. Later on a narrow residential road with speed bumps a man in a truck was rocketing up the road at about 30 mph right behind me flying over the bumps so hard the cab of his truck was smashing up and down against the truck's frame.

That is a pretty typical day of cycling on streets in this area. And yes I do stop at signs, make signals, and not ride in a huge pack of other bikers.

I have been stuck going very very slow behind cyclists going very very slow and deliberately blocking the lane by riding 3-4 abreast when there was room for them to ride single file. I can't see how that was legal.

Since bicycles now have their own lanes in many areas and we are to share the road with them as equals, it's about time they have license plates and bicycle drivers licenses. The collected fees would help the city/state as well.
Maybe some sort of bicycle proficiency testing and mandatory insurance are needed as well, since the risk of injury to the rider is almost certain when there is an accident involving them on public roads.
Especially with the speeds they can be driven at, their worth (several hundred to several thousand dollars) and expense to replace if lost, stolen or damaged in an accident. Some sort of insurance must be considered for the benefit of all,
since bikes can also do certain damage to others property as well.
Cars, Buses & Motorcyclists all have to have insurance and license plates to operate on public roads. Why not bicycles too?

"Many people assume that pedestrians and cyclists contribute
less than their fair share toward roadway costs because they do not pay vehicle user fees
(fuel taxes, vehicle registration fees, and road tolls), and so argue that pedestrians and
cyclists deserve less right to use roadway facilities. However, this assumption is wrong.
Although user fees fund most highway expenses, local roads are mainly funded through
general taxes that residents pay regardless of how they travel. The majority (probably
more than 90%) of walking and bicycling occurs on locally funded roads, since most
highways are unsuited to walking and bicycling. Table 2 shows that in 2002, $27.9 billion
were spent on U.S. local roads, of which only $3.1 billion was from user fees. General tax
funding averaged about 5.6¢ per motor vehicle mile of travel on local roads. Roadway
user charges fund only about 70% of roadway expenditures (only 60% excluding bond
revenues), indicating that fuel taxes would need to increase more than 45% to fully cover
these costs."
-from Page 6 of the following study

http://www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf

@ true freedom
What I posted IS A FACT. (VIRTUALLY) 99.37% OF ALL BICYCLE RIDERS RUN STOP SIGNS ALL THE TIME ON A DAILY BASIS.
Don't believe me ? Want to question it?
Tell you what... Lets meet this Saturday near the intersection of Ventura and Windsor.
Lets say 9:00am to 11:00 am. And I will make a friendly wager with you.
We will sit there and observe the 3 way stop sign there.
For every bicycle rider that stops for a stop sign I will pay you .25cents.
And for every bicycle rider that runs a stop sign , you pay me.25 cents.
Fair enough?
I'll even bring the coffee and granola bars. You bring several rolls of quarters.

As for your DMV automobile handbook link, Yes, it does back up what you posted.
However what I posted (above) is the bicycle specific code and in my view supersedes and further clarifies exactly what the codes are for bicycles.

As for reader Geoff A. post and the link he listed. VTPI is a Canadian outfit funded by pro-bicycle activists.
While it offers some interesting statistics applicable to Victoria Canada, It is decidedly agenda driven.

I stand by my assertion that local bicyclists pay no BICYCLE SPECIFIC tax or fee to use local roads.

With regards to licensing bicycles and bicycle riders, both Oregon and Colorado have current programs in place to license bike riders.
I would be for a simple maybe $10 license plate fee, with annual bicycle safety check inspection.
Or something similar. Doesn't have to be complicated.
It would help bike riders as well as the general public to see license plates on bicycles.
Currently there is no way to identify or hold bike riders responsible for their actions on public roads.
Cars, Buses and Motorcycles all have license plates. Why not bicycles?

If you two seriously consider sitting down and watching the intersection let me know- I'll publish your results. I think it is a great idea. What I think you will find is a lot of cyclists running a stop sign when there is nobody anywhere in sight in the intersection, but few running the stop sign when cars are present.

Look I apologize to everyone for ranting on on this topic.
I just feel strongly about bicyclists wanting to have all the advantages of using public roads, but not wanting to accept or bear any of the responsibilities or costs associated with doing so.
If bicycles are to be treated as equals to automobiles on public roads, having their own lanes and such, they MUST agree to be licensed for identification purposes just like all other wheeled devices that use public roads, and must across the board, agree to start to OBEY the most basic rules of the road.
That's it.
Let's move on.

@Dinah- I may do that. It would be a good story. I've also considered rigging a camera to my helmet when I ride to show intersections where motorists absolutely refuse to yield on a pedestrian crossway.

@True Freedom - I was thinking of strapping my iPhone to my helmet, but that does sound much cooler.

I'll concede that a majority of cyclists roll through stop sign, especially if there are no cars at the intersection, and should have every right to expect to be cited. I'd also like to have Ms. Dying of Cancer sit at the same area of Casitas and Ventura with a radar gun and verify that close to all motor vehicle drivers exceed the speed limit on both of those streets. That's why the stop sign was put there in the first place. By the way, it is not a 3 way stop on the weekends since the JPL lot is closed.

As to the report I posted being published by a group with an agenda, absolutely. I posted it to show actual, verifiable, numbers relating to the US roadways and their funding, instead of making up stuff to make a point. You have your agenda and make up stuff, they have their agenda and do actual research.

As to licensing and insurance, feel free to propose more bureaucracy and regulation on individuals and public and private institutions. You might have problems with that since the majority of the vocal population seem to be headed in the other direction.

Okay, someone said something above about cyclists being equal to vehicles on the road. Huh? That's like claiming that pedestrians are equal to vehicles. And then someone (Dan?) mentioned that many vehicles run right through pedestrian crosswalks.

NEXT TOPIC! I want to talk about rude and dangerous drivers who have no respect for pedestrians. I have almost been hit by vehicles that pay no attention and vehicles have honked at me and cursed me while I was in a crosswalk and the walk signal on. My friend who has MS and who is in a wheelchair has been hit in a crosswalk TWICE and the walk sign was green. I witnessed one of the incidents and yet another time I witnessed a vehicle hit a pedestrian as the pedestrian had the green light.

There are bicyclists that have an attitude. Like the ones that ride three abreast. But now I am starting to think that is for their own safety and they don't care who they anger since it is not safe riding single file due to all of the rude and dangerous people who drive cars.

So what this is really all about are the drivers that do not pay attention and do not realize or care that they can kill someone with their vehicle. Some bicyclists are jerks. So what. That's nothing compared to the jerk people that drive cars.

Agreed. Jerks are jerks no matter their method of transportation. It's just that some modes are statistically more lethal than others.

It's been called to my attention that I should add a caveat to my "99.937%" assertion.
That being ==> * " Unless the bicycle rider's life would be in immediate peril"
I DO admit bike riders WILL STOP for a stop sign if they are in danger of being injured, or in an accident.

As for the statement " By the way, it is not a 3 way stop on the weekends since the JPL lot is closed."
That is INCORRECT. The stop signs do not fold up on weekends.
They remain stop signs, in all directions at all times.
Actually the stop sign facing the JPL parking lot exit is the least of the problem.
We cannot pick and choose the stop signs we wish to obey.
Please check with the Altadena Sheriff's office if you have any doubts.

I also resent persons trying to do an "Alinsky" on me by trying to isolate & ridicule me.
Stick to the issue at hand and leave personal attacks out of the discourse.

Justifying bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior is both wrong and poor form.

@Geoff A. "As to the report I posted being published by a group with an agenda, absolutely. I posted it to show actual, verifiable, numbers relating to the US roadways and their funding"
...um.. NO you didn't.
The study was from Victoria, Canada regarding statistics that might be true in Canada .
Apples & oranges.

As it's been said... There are 3 types of lies:
Lies, Whoppers, and Statistics.

Now .. again.... let's move on!

@Lisa: You bring up a good point. There are times when I will fully assert my right under the law to ride in the middle of the lane: when the lane is too narrow for both the car and me to fit. If I stayed to the far right in these situations, cars would squeeze past without slowing. By being in the middle of the road, cars are forced to make a safe and proper pass. Additionally, I'm much more visible if I'm smack in the middle of the road... much easier for a texting, radio changing, cell phone talking driver to see.
Again, I try to avoid roads where that is even necessary... and I don't do it on roads with a big shoulder or bike lanes.

@TrueFreedom - What do you do with that camera helmet of yours? Do you film bike routes, or use it when you are mountain biking? What kind of footage do you come up with?

I've been hit by a car twice by staying to the right side of the road. Once doored by car being too close to a car being mindful of the traffic on my left. The driver of the parked car on my right flung his door open with little attention as he was talking on his cell phone. Luckily I wasn't run over by the cars in the two lanes of traffic driving by. Which they did drive past as I was lying in the middle of the road. The other time a car was trying to pass me way to close. He brushed me and my hip removed his side view mirror. I ended up with a cracked elbow, broken helmet (landed on the side of my head) and broken bike. Luckily the driver felt bad enough to stop and turn around. He paid for my bike repair and then fled any more responsibility by not paying my medical expenses. I was too nice and trusted him and should have followed suit legally. Now I ride in the middle of the road when in tight situations or at least 3 feet way from the car to avoid getting doored again. Sharrow marking in Altadena would be a great addition to show motorists that bikes belong in the road too ; )

wow, i am surprised by the comments on this thread.

if you blow it on a bike you're dead. if you blow it in a car you usually kill someone else.

if anyone watches an intersection for cyclists that dont stop at stop signs they must include cars that dont stop at stop signs. If you're then willing to argue that we should ban cars as a result, count me in!

I really dont understand the anger toward cyclists. Even if they take up a lane, which I often see, I believe it is rarely because it is their intention to hinder car drivers. It is generally clear when this is the intent, and it usually only happens in critical mass or similar efforts. I think it is obviously because they feel safer doing so. Should that be wrong? If a cyclist feels safer even riding side by side, why should it bother me if I have to drive a bit slower (and save some gas in the process) if it means being safer? Are kids running across the street trying to 'inhibit' car drivers from getting somewhere on time? The scary thing is car drivers sometimes intentionally mess with cyclists because they see them as not having a right to be on the road. This is stupid and very dangerous, imho.

People need to get over this belief that the highest priority thing about driving a car should be getting from one point to another as fast as they possibly can. So much so, that they actually increase their likelihood of killing someone in the process. Does that really make any sense whatsoever? Seriously?

Drivers should try cycling themselves before they criticize cyclists - I'd like them to see what it's like. It can be hard physical effort, and I'm no spring chicken. It's easy not to want to stop at a stop sign when there's no other traffic around, because it takes energy to regain the momentum lost. Car drivers only have to put their foot on the brake and then on the accelerator pedal. Try getting out of your cars and giving it a go - especially in a hilly area.

Car drivers should also be thankful that I've left my car at home and am on my bike, because that's one less car on the road to get in their way - my car takes up a lot more of the road than my bike.

@Barbara: good to hear you're out there on your bike.

You're right about the physical effort... I often find myself saying, "I never knew this street had an incline!"

The losing momentum at a stop sign is definitely a big energy sink for bikers. If I'm in my car and a cyclist is approaching a fourway stop near the same time as me... I'll wave them through.

There is a bill being proposed where a cyclist would be able to run a stop sign if there are no other cars present. This has been implemented in several cities with success. I think it's a great idea.

@True Freedom - Have a bill number or any other information on that legislation?