*covers eyes up and shakes head.
*covers eyes up and shakes head.
"She was not wearing a helmet" So what's that got to do with anything?
plus je vois les hommes, plus j'admire les chiens
1985 Custom built 531c Audax/fast tourer.
1964 Flying Scot Continental
1995 Cinelli Supercorsa
1980s Holdsworth Mistral fixed
2005 Dahon Speed 6 (folder)
(YES I LIKE STEEL)
2008 Viking Saratoga tandem
2008 Micmo Sirocco Hybrid (aluminium!)
2012 BTwin Rockrider 8.1
Sounds like both "sides" committed mistakes. The motorist, the former Miss America" made a turn with the sun in her eyes and was apparantly not able to see the cyclist. Obviously, the motorist should have modified their behavior more to take into account the compromised conditions.
However, the motorist did have a green light and the cyclist was crossing outside of the crosswalk. The newspaper account was sketchy though so it might not have happened that way. It does sound like the cyclist was not really obeying the rules of the road but acting like a jay walker on a bicycle. That is asking for trouble. The thing is if you do not obey the traffic laws, you are essentially a fugitive on the road and you take on the responsibility to avoid every vehicle out there.
The thing is that the laws are such that people can "expect" certain things to happen. I hate defending a motorist, but in this case could a motorist really expect a person to be out in the road where they are not really supposed to be?
I think this is a case of a lapse on the case of a motorist being fatal for a bike rider who sounds like they had no business being anywhere near the road.
The driver had the green which means the cyclist and crosswalk would have had the green as well, it would seem like a logical conclusion to draw, too bad the article is so void of any information except the murderer was extremely concerned and upset, and that the cyclist didn't have a helmet. Sure sounds like biased reporting to me. Miss America or not, politician's wife or not, looks like she is a murderer to me!
Pat, we both read the same VAGUE article, but I concluded that the cyclist was proceeding either with the flow of traffic, same or oppossing direction as the driver when the driver turned right or left and hit the cyclist. If I am riding down the raod, I don't cross in the cross walk either. Don't know the laws in Kentucky, do they have to cross the street in the crosswalk if they are riding in the street? Are they allowed to ride on the sidewalk? Not convinced by the article itself that the cyclist was in the wrong. And forgive me for saying this one and all, but who the hell cares if the person (cyclist or pedestrian) was in the crosswalk or not. "Gee, I can mow them down, they aren't in the crosswalk so it's their fault". Not the kind of mentality I relish!Originally Posted by Pat
First, my heart goes out to the cyclist and family. This is the first death of a cyclist that I have heard of in my city since I became a regular commuter six months ago. Quite unnerving.Originally Posted by Ohio Trekker
I am very familiar with this intersection. As far as I can tell, the driver was in one of two left-turn-only lanes with a green arrow, so the motorist probably had the "right of way" in this situation. The details are still sketchy. I'm anxious to learn more before passing judgement on the motorist as a murderer, though.
Thanks for the scoop on the intersection. The article didn't say which way she was turning or much else, including information you provided on the intersection.
I too am very sorry for the family of the cyclist, I guess I never actually said that due to the fact I was incensed by what I was "assuming" from reading the article. I guess personally I can't imagine proceeding in any direction when I can't see where I am going be it sun-glare, or ice on the windshield in the winter, the consequences, as this incident proves are just too great.
Yeah, when the sun is in my eyes I speed up and assume the path is clear. No doubt, the motorist will be cleared and the cyclist quickly forgotten - a reminder to keep you eyes open and ride defensively. What I found interesting about this article is that it assumed the same tone you see in all articles concerning cycling deaths - the motorist is distraught (punishment enough) and the cyclist screwed up by not wearing a helmet or obeying the law to the letter. Was the driver using her turn signal? If Kentucky is anything like Washington, there's a good chance she wasn't.
With the scetchy details of the article I find it very hard to place blame on the motorist. My heart goes out to the cyclist and family, but I am writing this one off as an unfortunate accident, without clear blame, rather than an agressive or wreckless act against the cyclist.
I see a lot of speculation going on here I am going to wait and see what comes of it. I will point out one thing that if the cyclists is outside the designated sidewalk then they are in the street and could be considered an illegal crossing or riding against traffic. I think this is one of the sh*t happens situation and my heart goes out to everbody involved.
The details are indeed very sketchy. Is there a better report out there? It sounds to me that the article when stating the cyclist was crossing outside the crosswalk meant that the cyclist was riding in the street and acting as a vehicle. It also seems that based on other's account of the intersection in question that the motorist was in a protected left turn. The question becomes if the motorist was allowed to go on a green or a green arrow only. If it's the latter case then the oncoming traffic (I'm assuming the cyclist was moving in the oncoming lane) would not have been permitted to cross the intersection and thus was in an illegal position. I agree that the motorist should have been watching for oncoming traffic regardless. Would you blindly turn through an intersection without looking for oncoming traffic even if you were in a protected left and had the green arrow? However, if what I envisioned was true then I believe the cyclist was more at fault for not heeding what should have been a red light. I think a better description of the accident needs to be given. Oh, BTW, I don't buy the "sun in my eyes" excuse.
Yes, I certainly need more facts before I can pass judgment on this incident. Since the bike's front wheel was ripped off, the motorist may have turn left across the cyclist's path. If the motorist had a green arrow, then presumably the cyclist ran a red light. If the motorist had a "cluster" (forward or left turn) green light, then she was legally required to wait for all opposing traffic to clear.
The article really says nothing, save the "not wearing a helmet" part. Having the sun in one's eyes can be a factor, but if I'm in that situation, I generally adjust my behaviour accordingly. I'm not sure the driver took that step on this occasion.
Boy I went there to check it out didn't even look at any of the threads just turned tail and came back here were at least we tend to be civilized here. Just makes me more impressed with this forum and how as a community we treat each otherOriginally Posted by Joe Gardner
that article says:
So, what it sounds like is that Henry made a left and then ran over the cyclist from behind. If the cyclist was a "wrong way cyclist" then legally Henry did nothing wrong. If, however, the cyclist was proceeding in the correct direction Henry would seem to be 100% at fault, and should have driven slower to match the conditions.Henry's vehicle — a Lincoln Navigator — was westbound on Lexington and had just turned left onto Grinstead, striking the cyclist in the right-hand lane just south of the crosswalk on Grinstead, said Alicia Smiley, a Louisville Metro Police spokeswoman.
Figures she was driving a lincoln navigator, conspicuous consumption piece of junk.
If you are in St. Louis, MO or surrounding areas it is imperative that you check this out: www.stlbikeworks.com.
Bikeworks is: A nonprofit bike co-operative to benefit all who come in contact with it.
Bikeworks needs: Donations of bikes, Volunteers, people to buy cheap cool bike stuff.
(selling: fixed gear and fixie stuff. Frames. Drivetrain bits from campagnolo, shimano, etc. Wheels and Wheelsets. Modern parts and vintage rarities. Whole bikes that are checked out and ready to go.
No WAY!Originally Posted by Joe Gardner
It doesn't matter much what she's driving. You can be just as dead when a Mini hits you. On a bike, I'm not certain the size of the car makes much difference, as you're so exposed. All the increased mass of a Navigator will do is kill you a little more. You might be safe if they were driving say, a Crosley, but that's only because you could probably out-acellerate it.
After looking at both articles, I can only say I'm completely confused by the whole thing and have no clue who's at fault, but I will say since she's married to a political figure, my cynicism says she's likely to get off...
Not necessarily. With a smaller vehicle you're more likely to go over the bonnet and be thrown clear. On large vehicles such as SUVs you're more likely to go under it, and a helmet ain't gonna save you under there. Given that the bike punctured the rear tyre of the truck, it seems fair to assume this is what happened.Originally Posted by Poguemahone
If we learn from our mistakes, I must be a goddamn genius.
Hijacking another. I'm sure glad you guys are all police officers. We sure can use the help in solving the accidents by reading the news paper. You know there is more to it that we don't know and I'll give you a bit of information.So, what it sounds like is that Henry made a left and then ran over the cyclist from behind. If the cyclist was a "wrong way cyclist" then legally Henry did nothing wrong. If, however, the cyclist was proceeding in the correct direction Henry would seem to be 100% at fault, and should have driven slower to match the conditions.
Assume. Ass-u-me. And to assume does just that.
'We' - are you a Police Officer, I thought you were a clerical worker in law enforcement?Originally Posted by lamajo25
If you re-read the threads I think everyone's made it quite clear that they are surmising based on limited facts rather than stating what happened. Not an unreasonable thing to do I'd have thought.
Currently riding an MTB with a split personality - commuting, touring, riding for the sake of riding, on or off road :)
I was perfectly clear in saying it was an assumption. To me two facts remain very clear, and I have no idea how you drive but;Originally Posted by lamajo25
1. I would not have proceeded at a speed faster than I could stop if I could not see where I was going, perhaps I am abnormal in my driving habits. Fog, Rain, Snow, Ice and Sun are all factors that (not exclusively) limit visability and suggest reduced speeds are in order.
2. I was always taught to expect the unexpected, I remember driving simulators with kids running out from between parked cars, or chasing their ball into the street. Driving defensively saves lifes.
And no, I am not a police officer, I am a compassionate human being, who finds it tragic that people can drive so irresponsibly in any circumstances and not be cited because they have a lame excuse. Just like everything else in our litigious society, it's always someone elses fault. Perhaps there was a shared blame for this accident, and whether the cyclist was at fault or not, the driver could have prevented it by heeding the above two common sense driving rules. I guess our society would rather accept lame excuses, than enforce common sense leaving driving a right as opposed to a priveledge that carries responsibility. Who should I have compassion for, the person who was killed or the person who I still feel was driving less than responsibly?
And I for one don't think I was solving the crime, I was voicing my opinion based on the limited facts presented, and my extensive driving experience. I feel that with the exception of YOU, everyone understood what I was expressing, and cut me some slack. If you want to add to your little armory of quips like "assume", perhaps you could add opinions are like @ssholes, seems fitting in this case. I regret my statement calling the person a muderer, and have given considerable thought to my use of the word, but I remain firm in my belief, she was driving less than responsibily, and perhaps the outcome could have been different. But I will never be sorry for voicing opinions, and carrying on a logical, and non-confrontational discussion with the majority of level headed people around here.
Some people discuss and contribute, some people hi-jack. That's what makes the WWW go around.
As far as I can tell, no one here is trying to "Solve" the
accident, what we are trying to do is understand what
happened. If you check other cycling forums its being
discussed in them also.
What really disturbs me about the entire incident is that
the driver called her husband first, not 911.
Lets try to keep this civil and not turn it into 7 pages of
pedantic bickering, ok?