CbadRider

Any time.

Jobiensis

The best case scenario if someone FRAPs there and gets hit is they lose both legs. There isn't room, and if someone tries to share you are going to be caught between a car and a concrete divider.

milnerpt

Pfft. Sharrows? All they do is serve as a reminder of what the cars should be doing already. A sharrow or lack of sharrow doesnt do any more for this bridge than a sign that says "bikes on roadway" or "watch for bikes". And I would rather have the latter. Sharrows IMHO reinforce driver's ideas that bikes are not supposed to be in the lane.

milnerpt

As for those who say "oh, Id be riding on the sidewalk!" or "thats a death trap, I would avoid it!"....It seems you likely have not ridden around the country much. I think its more important to educate and change drivers habits.

Ive ridden over the Astoria bridge WA-OR... now THATS a bridge... and its the only way over. And there is no sidewalk/sharrow/bike lane. I was not taking the lane, and the drivers were very courteous. There are parts on the west coast that force you to ride on the freeway, and through a military base because there are no alternatives.

The pedestrian path would basically only be safe walking your bike, considering the amount of foot traffic and narrowness of the path. check out the first few seconds where joggers are sneaking past the peds walking 2 abreast.

Seattle Forrest

Oh. That explains everything.

mtbikerinpa

To answer a few conjectures posed here, the bridge is the safer of the 3 for riding in the road, the other two are 55+ and the sidewalk is no-bikes. There ARE sharrows at the bridge footers and the majority of road traffic is hardly hair raising. I used to use that bridge all the time to go to the rail trail at the other side. Using the other bridges would be the unsafe recommendation. He was operating as he should where he should.

On the other topic, in PA the town/city level cops(which Bethlehem is one of the more effective depts) do not get the privilege of radar usage. That is in my opinion a great detriment to the process of speed control, but not impossible. The police actually watch that bridge a lot because....

The police dept is at the top of the hill that the bike was heading to.

lineinthewater

Radar loophole? Just measure the time it takes to go from one side of the bridge to the other. lol

mtbikerinpa

I have been going through that with my smalltown cops lately. They cannot freelance their timing zones without specific approval from the town/county council. Rather bothersome since anyone with a brain can see where the lines in the road are.

HBxRider

If you witness any kind of hit and run, whether it be car vs. bike, pedestrian, or other car. Dont stop and check on the victim while the criminal flees and gets away. Follow the car, get the plates, call 911, then go back to the victim (they will still be there)

If that bus driver wasnt awesome, the criminal would have gotten away, since the other witness stopped to check on the victim.

Deathly Hallows

But under the 4 foot law, the line the cyclist is taking blocks both lanes of traffic. He does not leave room for a larger vehicle to pass in the left lane and be at least 4 feet away from him.

It looks to me that as vehicles are approaching from behind, the cyclist moves closer to the center of the roadway. Taking the lane may be the safest approach to crossing this bridge, but I think it's best to hold a line rather than fading towards the middle.

CB HI

Did you really have to move a whining recreational roadie thread to A&S. Even A&S is more sensible than this 'I can't ride that road or it is rude to slow motorist even if they have their very own passing lane' crap.

lineinthewater

I would have to argue that is a case-by-case call. What if the victim was critically injured? You spending only a few minutes to chase the car could cost the victim's life. Or, what if the next car behind you is going full speed and/or doesn't see the victim? You just leave them there unattended and unprotected?

It's certainly not as clear-cut as you make it. The victim's safety should be the number one priority.

atbman

If you are overtaking in the second lane, I believe that there would be the presumption that you are ok to do so.

I'd also take issue with the argument that the road was busy. As far as I could see, no-one had any difficulty in overtaking him as the second lane was largely empty. In fact, if you look at the driver coming up behind him at 22 seconds, s/he slows down unnecessarily, rather than overtaking, when the other lane is clear. The fact remains that no-one else had any difficulty in seeing him and overtaking safely. Why then should anyone be blaming the rider for the collision?

As far as his lane positioning was concerned, he's slightly further out than I would have been, but, for all we know, he has chosen that position because of previous experience on that particular bridge. I would argue that, given the 4' clearance rule and the apparent width of the lane, he really does need to take the lane as there (probably) wouldn't be room for a 4' overtaking manoevre within the lane unless he was almost touching the barrier. If that is the case, then taking the lane and leaving sufficient room to swerve to the right if squeezed is, arguably, the best protection for a rider.

For once, the police seem to have acted on the side fo the cyclist, rather than, as we've seen in far to many cases, the driver.

Along with others, chapeau to both the drivers of the bus and the blocking car.

ItsJustMe

Even the worst substandard lanes are 10 feet wide (that's more of an alley than a lane), so a cyclist in the center of the road has at least 5 feet to either side. Anyone passing in the other lane, even hugging the line, is still more than 4 feet away.

Dchiefransom

That's why we aren't supposed to tailgate.

GamblerGORD53

HaHaHa Another left tire track hugger gets swatted like a bug. Lucky he had a backpack for padding. Here is the perfect example of the FLAW in VC philosophy that only works when there are cars behind that can SEE you. When 5 or 6 vehicles of all sizes start changing lanes and passing each other, then the ONLY place to BE seen is as FRAP.
This Mario driver wannabe who was obviously speeding, pulled out around the bus and had NO CHOICE but to rear-end the
cyclist. He's lucky the driver was equally fast on the brakes, but couldn't see the bike (only 3 or 4 feet from the bus) soon enough. If FRAP, then the driver would have seen him SOONER and could have veered back left enough to miss colliding in all probability.

CB HI

Great job GamblerGORD53, you have discovered that when people violate the laws like speeding, passing on the right and overdriving your line of sight, NO ONE is safe. And then you try to blame it on VC, pretending that riding FRAP is safer.

This guy lived. I guess you missed all the stories of FRAP, bike lane and shoulder riders getting run over and killed.

Go back to riding your MUP and stop complaining about cyclist riding legally.

genec

Drivers always have the choice to use the other pedal.

bluegoatwoods

I agree that the bicyclist is not to blame. He was doing nothing wrong.

But I also agree that I wouldn't ride that bridge. I'd walk my bike on the footpath. But I'd resent the necessity.

And the necessity is caused by motorists who drive too fast for conditions and tailgate.

That's what needs fixing.

shokhead

That could be about a driver or cyclist.

bluegoatwoods

It does look as though the sidewalk is accessible, at one end, only by stairway. Bicyclists could carry their bikes up those stairs, but they shouldn't have to. The way I load my bike I'd be capable, technically, of doing it. But I wouldn't.

I notice, also, that at least three other vehicles came up on the rider far too fast and far too close. The pickup nearly clipped him with the trailer.

I wonder why the video does not show the moments just before impact?

dynodonn 

I'd ride in the middle of the outside lane on that bridge in a heartbeat, but I'd be wearing brighter clothing than the cyclist. Locally, I ride down the middle of an outside lane on one of our 3 lane arterials daily.

gcottay

I hope the posters who so strongly advocate riding far right in a lane so obviously too narrow for safe sharing stay on their favorite MUPS and do not subject their family and friends to a funeral.

GamblerGORD53

I guess you and CB-HI didn't read all the posts. The score is at least 50/50 that MR. LAB cyclist was riding poorly and or just plain wrong.
I dare you to start a poll about whether he does the same BS 9 mph fluttering in the left track again.

As for me I have ridden FRAP and 4' from doors since 1965 and in at least 30 USA cities as well. Texas, Calif., Idaho, Utah, Oregon, Neb. , OK, SD, ND, etc.
Like I said last week, NO hits, NO runs, No errors. Close only counts in horseshoes and WMDs.

As for the OP case again, the car driver's only mistakes were speeding and running away. If he had stayed put, there was ZERO chance that ANY LEO would
have given him any greif al all. The evidence was right there on the hood. A dent DEAD center = a dumbass cyclist was more than 4' from FRAP.

Memo to the GOV : Pass an amendment to to 4' law that it also applies to the bicycle from the curb/ car doors etc.

genec

The driver also failed to yield right of way to traffic right in front of him, that too is a violation of the law.

Had that been any other vehicle other than a bicycle, that issue would be quite obvious to you... but for some reason you fail to give cyclists the rights due to them granted by EVERY STATE in the US.

Since you don't understand the laws, I suggest that you don't drive, AND should probably restrict your cycling to MUPs... at least until you learn the laws.