Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Advocacy & Safety (http://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/)
-   -   Car on pedestrian bridge hits cyclist (http://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/954060-car-pedestrian-bridge-hits-cyclist.html)

Metal Man 06-17-14 09:44 AM

That's what I got out of it, that it was a bridge employee. It looks to me like she just started on a downhill stretch and that the truck was going at a decent clip. If they are allowed to drive on it you would think there must be some kind of a speed limit for them. They should be limited to a fast walking speed if it's a pedestrian bridge or better yet they probably should be allowed on it.

achoo 06-17-14 09:53 AM

Looks like she forgot about the mirror. She won't be making that mistake again. The driver does seem to be about as far over as possible, the cyclist? Not so much, though I will admit it's tough to get a feel for how far from the well/fence she was from that video, though she doesn't seem to be any farther over to the right than she was for most of the video.

IMO, both were going too fast for the situation, if the above VDOT statement is true.

howsteepisit 06-17-14 10:16 AM

MAybe the VDOT should have their contractors ride a bike to their work station at the bridge.

FBinNY 06-17-14 10:51 AM

There was about 3 seconds from the time they cam into each other's view. That should have been enough time to stop, or at least slow to a crawl.

I don't think speed was the factor, I suspect it was inattentiveness, or maybe the assumption on each of their parts that the other would make the adjustment. Sort of a chicken race without the beach bunnies watching.

Chris516 06-17-14 10:58 AM

County/city/municipal employee, or not. That is a bike/ped bridge. Therefore, When the 'driver' saw the cyclist. They should have pulled over quickly and slammed on the brakes.

kickstart 06-17-14 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris516 (Post 16858541)
County/city/municipal employee, or not. That is a bike/ped bridge. Therefore, When the 'driver' saw the cyclist. They should have pulled over quickly and slammed on the brakes.

Agreed, and pointed out several times by myself and others. It seems neither made an attempt to slow or stop, therefore they collided.

achoo 06-17-14 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FBinNY (Post 16858517)
There was about 3 seconds from the time they cam into each other's view. That should have been enough time to stop, or at least slow to a crawl.

I don't think speed was the factor, I suspect it was inattentiveness, or maybe the assumption on each of their parts that the other would make the adjustment. Sort of a chicken race without the beach bunnies watching.

Now that you mention it, yeah.

It looks like they were playing chicken to a good degree.

keyven 06-17-14 08:32 PM

Well since we're all making assumptions...

- The guy could have been assuming she had enough space, and from the look of it, she did.

- She may have misjudged and got hit by the mirror. It happens.

- He should have drastically slowed down when passing a pedestrian or cyclist. I'm hard-pressed to imagine his company not adopting that kind of position.

- It's entirely possible she knows a mistake was made on both sides but still chose to blow it up.

- Everyone hates the police in the US so this is as good a reason to trash them

Metal Man 06-18-14 06:57 AM

Quote:

- He should have drastically slowed down when passing a pedestrian or cyclist. I'm hard-pressed to imagine his company not adopting that kind of position.
He should have already been slowed down and then stopped immediately at first sight of anyone.

wphamilton 06-18-14 07:02 AM

I have some questions for whoever knows about this pedestrian bridge. Is it explicitly a bike way? Or is it like a sidewalk - for pedestrians - and if so are bikes allowed on sidewalks there? Is this a private bridge, who maintains it? With all the passing the buck here, who really has jurisdiction?

Regarding the three seconds, some people take two or more to process when confronted with something unusual and up to a second reaction time. For me, maybe for some others here, three seconds would be a luxury and plenty of time but I don't really hold part that against her. Or the driver. Some people are just slow. The questions in my mind are how fast were they going, and should either of them have even been there?

dynodonn 06-18-14 07:19 AM

The bridge employee is completely at fault and should not even been on the bridge with their personal vehicle in first place, plus no warning lights, too wide of a vehicle, and driving at an inappropriate speed for the conditions.

achoo 06-18-14 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dynodonn (Post 16860929)
The bridge employee is completely at fault and should not even been on the bridge with their personal vehicle in first place, plus no warning lights, too wide of a vehicle, and driving at an inappropriate speed for the conditions.

It did appear he was going too fast, but your other statements are contradicted by the information VDOT released that was posted above.

dynodonn 06-18-14 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by achoo (Post 16861093)
It did appear he was going too fast, but your other statements are contradicted by the information VDOT released that was posted above.

It would be irresponsible on the DOT's part for letting employees drive their personal vehicles on the pedestrian bridge, and if they did, I can guarantee that there is going to be a major policy change concerning DOT related motor vehicles operating on this bridge, stemming from this incident.

Putting up a sign and calling it good was poor planning on this DOT's part.

daihard 06-18-14 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metal Man (Post 16860886)
He should have already been slowed down and then stopped immediately at first sight of anyone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dynodonn (Post 16860929)
The bridge employee is completely at fault and should not even been on the bridge with their personal vehicle in first place, plus no warning lights, too wide of a vehicle, and driving at an inappropriate speed for the conditions.

+100

achoo 06-18-14 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dynodonn (Post 16861142)
It would be irresponsible on the DOT's part for letting employees drive their personal vehicles on the pedestrian bridge, and if they did, I can guarantee that there is going to be a major policy change concerning DOT related motor vehicles operating on this bridge, stemming from this incident.

Putting up a sign and calling it good was poor planning on this DOT's part.

https://localtvwtkr.files.wordpress....6/vdotsign.png

It's been that way for 20+ years:

Berkley Bridge (Virginia) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Poor planning is playing chicken with an SUV. Even if it had been there illegally.

FenderTL5 06-18-14 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dynodonn (Post 16861142)
It would be irresponsible on the DOT's part for letting employees drive their personal vehicles on the pedestrian bridge, and if they did, I can guarantee that there is going to be a major policy change concerning DOT related motor vehicles operating on this bridge, stemming from this incident.

Putting up a sign and calling it good was poor planning on this DOT's part.

Agree. Even IF VDOT vehicles can use the bridge, this wasn't a VDOT vehicle but a personal vehicle of a VDOT contractor (not even a VDOT employee).

kickstart 06-18-14 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FenderTL5 (Post 16862343)
Agree. Even IF VDOT vehicles can use the bridge, this wasn't a VDOT vehicle but a personal vehicle of a VDOT contractor (not even a VDOT employee).

Its the authority and responsibility the be safe that matters, not who owns the vehicle.
The contractor failed to exercise his authority safely, the cyclist failed to heed the posted warning. Both made mistakes, but the burden of responsibility falls on the contractor as a professional doing his job.

hallux 06-18-14 06:12 PM

Looking at Google maps (yes, I know the imagery can be relatively old) it appears that sign only appears on the side from which the vehicle entered the pathway, I could not locate one of those signs at the other end. Neither end has ANY vehicle protections, it's a wide-open access with the exception of a curb.

dynodonn 06-18-14 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by achoo (Post 16861899)

Poor planning is playing chicken with an SUV. Even if it had been there illegally.

Again, poor planning is putting up a sign, and calling it good...... no matter how long it has been there. One can only guess on how many other incidents similar to this has occurred, and swept under the rug since it's only a matter of a short while that compact personal video cameras have been in use, and social media to post it on.

As for the cyclist playing chicken, you need to look at the video, there's not enough space or time for the cyclist to get out of the way.

The statement made by the cyclist in the linked article.....

“I saw this vehicle. Oh, my God. Brake. Scream,” those were the thoughts that Kelley Howell shared with WVEC-TV of the encounter on the Berkley Bridge toward Norfolk, Virginia, Saturday. ”When I realized I was hitting him, there was no way to stop it.”

Sure doesn't sound like a person trying to play "chicken".

keyven 06-19-14 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dynodonn (Post 16863663)
Again, poor planning is putting up a sign, and calling it good...... no matter how long it has been there. One can only guess on how many other incidents similar to this has occurred, and swept under the rug since it's only a matter of a short while that compact personal video cameras have been in use, and social media to post it on.

As for the cyclist playing chicken, you need to look at the video, there's not enough space or time for the cyclist to get out of the way.

The statement made by the cyclist in the linked article.....

“I saw this vehicle. Oh, my God. Brake. Scream,” those were the thoughts that Kelley Howell shared with WVEC-TV of the encounter on the Berkley Bridge toward Norfolk, Virginia, Saturday. ”When I realized I was hitting him, there was no way to stop it.”

Sure doesn't sound like a person trying to play "chicken".

To be fair, absolutely no one is going to frame it in favor of the other side if they made the report - they'd look like idiots otherwise. I would highlight that it's hard to tell exactly how 'shockingly' fast everything went down.

The driver should have played it safer, but on the other hand, he might have passed other cyclists in the same vehicle without incident and assumed it'd be the same here. I'm not defending him, but it's no different from various posters here saying they know how to be safe even when 'bending' the rules.

Those same people who bend the rules repeatedly may have gotten away with it hundreds of times, and only in the event of an accident do their abilities and responsibility come into question. Maybe he was giving her the maximium space as usual, but there was always a chance the cyclist themselves could misjudge.

oudeis1963 06-19-14 04:41 AM

Car on pedestrian bridge hits cyclist
 
In her own statements elsewhere, the driver was asked why he was driving so fast. He said, "I was only doing 15 and I moved over." She refuses to release that portion of the video because he has not been accused of a crime. As she says in her op-ed, someone or an organization failed to train him OR the individual didn't heed that training. As you see in the video, she has plenty of time to expect the kids and move over for them. Had the SUV been driving at the pedestrian speed the VDOT trucks usually do, she would have been able to stop.

VDOT has stopped misdirecting blame to the bicyclist. Instead, they have made publicly clear the rules their workers used to follow and will continue to follow. They have even made enhanced requirements. They also require that a spotter walk ahead of the vehicle so it can only travel as fast as a pedestrian. The advocacy groups here are going to also push for signage that can actually be seen by a bicyclists and pedestrian. Currently, one sign is at least 10 feet high and facing the adjacent street where no pedestrian or bicyclist would be, since they use the sidewalk as onramp to the bridge. Current signage would require that you be in the road, turned at a right angle to the curb and craning your neck upward to see the sign.

First Person: A VDOT Contractor Hit Me--& My Bike--on a Pedestrian Bridge

Pilot Editorial: Accident aftermath: Who's in charge? | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com

dynodonn 06-19-14 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oudeis1963 (Post 16863979)
In her own statements elsewhere, the driver was asked why he was driving so fast. He said, "I was only doing 15 and I moved over." She refuses to release that portion of the video because he has not been accused of a crime. As she says in her op-ed, someone or an organization failed to train him OR the individual didn't heed that training. As you see in the video, she has plenty of time to expect the kids and move over for them. Had the SUV been driving at the pedestrian speed the VDOT trucks usually do, she would have been able to stop.

In addition to a spotter, the DOT vehicle should be of a width that will not block or adversely affect ped or bicycle traffic going in the opposite direction, and if the DOT vehicle is oversized, then the bridge should be temporarily closed and cleared of ped/bicycle traffic, with advanced warning.

Quote:

VDOT has stopped misdirecting blame to the bicyclist. Instead, they have made publicly clear the rules their workers used to follow and will continue to follow. They have even made enhanced requirements.
As the DOT should have done in the first place, and thanks in part to the rise in compact video cameras and social media.

Quote:

The advocacy groups here are going to also push for signage that can actually be seen by a bicyclists and pedestrian. Currently, one sign is at least 10 feet high and facing the adjacent street where no pedestrian or bicyclist would be, since they use the sidewalk as onramp to the bridge. Current signage would require that you be in the road, turned at a right angle to the curb and craning your neck upward to see the sign.
It never ceases to amaze me on how many DOTs have designed and implemented ped/bicycle projects as though they were for motorized use in nature....autocentric mentality has spread into all the departmental nooks and crannies

exile 06-19-14 08:07 PM

3 Attachment(s)
Here's the sign:
http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=388289

Here's the most likely VDOT vehicle (of what I could find):
http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=388290

Here is what the cyclist hit:
http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=388291

unterhausen 06-19-14 08:21 PM

I'm curious what the point is of letting people drive on the walkway is anyway. I would assume they are going to a parking lot that is not on the bridge, must be a shortcut to avoid circling around the exits on the other side of the bridge

dynodonn 06-19-14 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by exile (Post 16866352)

Here's the most likely VDOT vehicle (of what I could find):
http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=388290

Here is what the cyclist hit:
http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=388291

....and the size of vehicle the DOT should be using on this bridge.....

Carryall 710 LSV


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:22 AM.