randya

that's not the point. the point is that a motorist driving on the other side of the parked cars who wants to turn right doesn't necessarily see a cyclist traveling parallel on the other side of the parked cars.

randya

wtf? don't go all emo on us now! you're the one who put killers homicide in quoted caps; but really, you're not quite blaming the victim, but you are defending the motorist. inattentiveness is rampant among motorists, and it needs to be dealt with decisively, or it will continue unabated.

in the US there are 40K 'unlucky' motorists each year, not to mention all the non-fatal injury and property damage collisions, is that all just an 'accident'**********??

I don't think so.

B. Carfree

The last time I looked,the injuries per year caused by motorists was four million. That works out to every person being injured by an "unlucky" (according to RichMac) motorist during an average lifespan. I believe you are absolutely right. Until we, as a society, insist on real and painful consequences the CARnage will continue.

In my opinion you are also right-on in your assessment of separated "cycle-tracks". Those absolutely guarantee both right- and left-hooks. They are clearly designed to pretend to promote cycling while really just getting cyclists out of the way of carcissists.

RichMac

No, trek2.3bike put those terms in caps.

If you don't think the people involved in these accidents are suffering than you're ridiculously clueless. The number of people who want to kill another people are few and far between. The number of people who do kill another person are much more prevalent. They are the people who really suffer. This RAH RAH hate S*** doesn't help anyone.

trek2.3bike

My point was directed at the AUTHORITIES who treat the driver who killed the cyclist as the victim and let them off with a slap on the wrist. The actor who causes the deadly result, the killer, is the driver not the truck. If the driver won't "get the message" to be aware of cyclists, the authorities can act to reinforce the message. It works for MADD, why not for cyclists?

Got a better idea?

crhilton

Yea, I don't get this obsession. Separate from traffic is fantastic. But you can't build a road next to a road and call it separate unless one of them is consistently grade separated at every intersection.

hubcap

I think everybody understands that many of the divers suffer mentally after killing a cyclist. But MADD got it right with their approach. You have to use specific and explicit examples of accidents to change the minds of regulators and the court system. You will not change motorists behaviour with MADD-type tactics, but get the courts to strip someones drivers license for a year or two for not paying attention while operating a 2-ton vehicle, then you start getting people to pay attention. 75% of first time DUI offenders get a second DUI charge. Guess what the rate is for them getting a 3rd DUI charge...<10%. Why? Because the the first offenders get a slap on the wrist, while the second offenders get life-altering repercussions. Like I said, MADD did it right.

electrik

You know, the law doesn't distinguish between ignorance of it and disobedience to it. There are lots of people who are ignorant monsters behind the wheel, i've heard once that 20% of the drivers cause 80% of the accidents... well we need to crack down hard on those 20%. People ARE getting away with it. The difference between murder and manslaughter is willful intent not innocence.

Brian Sharpe

+1

I'm not suggesting we imprison all drivers who kill or injure cyclists / pedestrians / other drivers - but certainly if the driver acts with reckless disregard for the safety of others or in a grossly negligent manner (street racing / DUI etc) it may be an appropriate sanction but even it's simple negligence the punishment should be more than a ticket for dangerous driving.

billew

As much as I don't like people getting killed this seems like a case of instant karma. The rider was on a bike he stole several hours earlier, his backpack contained bolt cutters and he had a nice long rap-sheet. Check the sidebar for a link in the original page.

10 Wheels

https://www.startribune.com/local/105...EP7vDEh7P:DiUs

vol

This news should be known to all bike thieves. Unfortunately for the original owner the bike is no longer complete.

P.S. To the motor vehicle drivers: Please don't assume all the cyclists you meet are thieves.

P.P.S.: Wonder how the case will be handled because of this twist.

dougmc

The motorist may sue the bike owner for damage to his vehicle?

Certainly is an interesting development.

billdsd

It's not clear to me from the original article who was at fault. If the driver raced to the turn and slammed on the brakes to make the turn before the cyclist had time to react, then yes, it was the driver's fault. If the driver was ahead long before that and moved over and turned right, but the cyclist tried to pass on the right anyway, then the cyclist was at fault. Yeah, the driver should have looked but it's easy for a bicyclist to be in a blind spot and reality is that most drivers don't seem to expect to be passed on the right by a bike.

Passing on the right is not something that should be done without being sure that drivers in front of you won't turn right. It's usually better to pass on the left when you reasonably can or hang back if you can't pass on the left. Moving left (after making sure it's clear) when approaching the potential right turn spot can reduce the race-to-the-turn factor.

trek2.3bike

Not if you are on a bicycle and IN a bicycle lane.

Minnesota law requires a turning motor vehicle to yield to other vehicles (a term which includes bicycles). There is even a SPECIFIC rule for motor vehicles in bicycle lanes. The burden is on the person making the turn.

Minn. Stat. sec. 169.19 provides, in part, as follows:

genec

The problem is NOBODY bothered to teach the motorists these rules, nor what the right hand mirror was for.

It really rankles my hide when I see discussions that mention "incompetent cyclists" and yet overlook "incompetent motorists," the latter which form a much larger group than the former.

Trek2.3bike is right... in many states the laws, and the lines are just fine... but the motorists drive as if none of that matters.

electrik

That has nothing todo directly with his karma. Karma isn't some sort of cosmic justice. It was his karma to be hit because he was on a bicycle at the wrong place at the wrong time... we all share that karma, each of us when we get on a bicycle.

randya

and society seems to have given up on trying to change that. Instead we hear urban planners and cycling advocates call for more separated paths, just like the one this fellow died on.

billdsd

The thing is, by not passing cars on the right if there's any chance they could turn right, you take control of your own safety instead of depending upon them to be looking for you.

It's kind of like maintaining a safe distance from parallel parked cars. Sure, the law says it's their fault if they open a door in front of you but you're still the one who is injured or dead if they do. It's safer to avoid the dangerous situation by leaving a safe distance.

I don't trust people to be paying attention to their mirrors or what's coming up behind them. About the only place that you can be sure that they see you is in the middle of the lane in front of them.

randya

the way this bike lane is built - between the curb and a row of parked cars - right side mirrors are useless

CB HI

Sounds like you guys up north have a different idea of karma. His bad karma brought him some bad results (at least as far as he was concerned).

wheel

Minneapolis has said you don't need to ride in any bike lane. You have the option to use the road. They also have left side bike lanes with contra flow bus lanes

For those who want a visual of the bike lane where it interacts with the right turn lane. This is the redesigned bike lane. This was a special case where the cop blocks the right turn lane, but you get the idea.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccnjLVz0nww

randya

that's absurd. and dangerous. to design this sort of intersection correctly you absolutely need separate light phases for cyclists and right turning traffic.

I like that giant bright distracting LED sign advertising cheap parking too.

trek2.3bike

Nobody bothered to teach drivers not to drink and drive until MADD started acting up and putting pressure on the authorities to enforce the law.
As I said in my OP the AUTHORITYS are the pressure point. There are too many bad drivers to ever reach them by private protest.
But WE can boil the police chiefs, mayors, city planners, prosecutors, judges, and legislators. They are few, well identified, and must act in public.
THEY DO RESPOND TO PROTEST. And the media loves a good demonstration.

There is no reason why the Bicycle Community can't do what MADD did and make cyclist safety a make or break political issue. Then we won't have videos
of cop cars blocking bike lanes and cops scratching the butts while in front of them drivers "right hook" the cyclist with right of way. And we'll have a lot fewer injuries and deaths.

But WE have to get off our collective (and individual) asses first.

genec

I fully agree, but the cycling advocates I have spoken with time after time tell me that cyclists should not be telling motorists how to drive, especially in light of the fact that so many folks on bikes so often fail to adhere to vehicular laws for cycling.