Car on pedestrian bridge hits cyclist
#51
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 2,896
Bikes: Workcycles FR8, 2016 Jamis Coda Comp, 2008 Surly Long Haul Trucker
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times
in
5 Posts
There is no excuse to be late at VDOT, you're allowed to drive on the pathways with your own personal vehicle .
#52
Banned
Also an excerpt from an article by the cyclist that collided with the bridge contractor's vehicle:
"When VDOT drivers stopped for us, we dismounted and squeezed on past. Once, we had to press into the wall to get through. Yes, it is that tight there. Always, my husband raises his bike to clear 25 inch wide handlebars. They are too wide to fit next to the truck."
I just cannot imagine the effort by someone in an electric wheel chair, or who are not able to lift their bike up and over to get past an over sized vehicle.
#53
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1,143
Bikes: Fully customized 11-spd MTB built on 2014 Santa Cruz 5010 frame; Brompton S2E-X 2014; Brompton M3E 2014
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
The other explanation could be that the vehicle is carrying heavy tools. Why assume a VDOT worker would not need any tools for carrying out repairs or inspections?
#54
Cycle Year Round
For which a small electric cart would work fine. The fact that VDOT did not make the claim in their defense that the contractor needed the car for tools, indicates that the only reason was for the transport of the one individual.
__________________
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
#55
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1,143
Bikes: Fully customized 11-spd MTB built on 2014 Santa Cruz 5010 frame; Brompton S2E-X 2014; Brompton M3E 2014
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
It's only when an incident happens that the practice would be called into question. Like this one.
#56
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Kent Wa.
Posts: 5,332
Bikes: 2005 Gazelle Golfo, 1935 Raleigh Sport, 1970 Robin Hood sport, 1974 Schwinn Continental, 1984 Ross MTB/porteur, 2013 Flying Piegon path racer, 2014 Gazelle Toer Populair T8
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 396 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
7 Posts
Contractors should be able to use whatever vehicle they see fit to conduct their business, but they should use it professionally and responsibly.
#57
Banned
Even contractors have a certain protocol to follow when operating their vehicle on public infrastructure and not how they see fit. I've watched how a number of contractors operate, give some of these ****ers an inch and they'll take the whole mile.
#58
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Kent Wa.
Posts: 5,332
Bikes: 2005 Gazelle Golfo, 1935 Raleigh Sport, 1970 Robin Hood sport, 1974 Schwinn Continental, 1984 Ross MTB/porteur, 2013 Flying Piegon path racer, 2014 Gazelle Toer Populair T8
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 396 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
7 Posts
#59
Banned
#60
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Kent Wa.
Posts: 5,332
Bikes: 2005 Gazelle Golfo, 1935 Raleigh Sport, 1970 Robin Hood sport, 1974 Schwinn Continental, 1984 Ross MTB/porteur, 2013 Flying Piegon path racer, 2014 Gazelle Toer Populair T8
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 396 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
7 Posts
#61
Cycle Year Round
Do you really believe that contractor should be allowed to choose to operate his private vehicle on that pathway?
__________________
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
#62
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Kent Wa.
Posts: 5,332
Bikes: 2005 Gazelle Golfo, 1935 Raleigh Sport, 1970 Robin Hood sport, 1974 Schwinn Continental, 1984 Ross MTB/porteur, 2013 Flying Piegon path racer, 2014 Gazelle Toer Populair T8
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 396 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
7 Posts
How its used is what matters, and in this case the driver failed to meet his responsibility to be safe and professional. Blame the fool, not the tool.
#63
Cycle Year Round
If there's a legitimate reason to use vehicles on that bridge, what possible difference does it make if its owned by the worker, the contracting company, or the VDOT?
How its used is what matters, and in this case the driver failed to meet his responsibility to be safe and professional. Blame the fool, not the tool.
How its used is what matters, and in this case the driver failed to meet his responsibility to be safe and professional. Blame the fool, not the tool.
__________________
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
#64
What happened?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Around here somewhere
Posts: 7,927
Bikes: 3 Rollfasts, 3 Schwinns, a Shelby and a Higgins Flightliner in a pear tree!
Mentioned: 57 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1835 Post(s)
Liked 292 Times
in
255 Posts
That's true, if he can get it in there on a bike.
If the sign said no pets would you forbid a veterinarian passage?
So let that bridge fall apart.
Or let the local authorities do their job.
Or change the name of the forum to Rage & Indignation.
If the sign said no pets would you forbid a veterinarian passage?
So let that bridge fall apart.
Or let the local authorities do their job.
Or change the name of the forum to Rage & Indignation.
#65
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1,143
Bikes: Fully customized 11-spd MTB built on 2014 Santa Cruz 5010 frame; Brompton S2E-X 2014; Brompton M3E 2014
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
And none of this would be on the news if the driver had done the right thing and slowed to a crawl until she passed safely.
Ultimately, the 'right tool' mostly matters as to how the user employs it. If he was cycling at full speed right in the middle of the bridge, she was STILL going to go down.
If he was going to drive a motorized vehicle (for convenience, work, play, whatever) on the bridge, he should have been extra cautious to the point of paranoia.
Ultimately, the 'right tool' mostly matters as to how the user employs it. If he was cycling at full speed right in the middle of the bridge, she was STILL going to go down.
If he was going to drive a motorized vehicle (for convenience, work, play, whatever) on the bridge, he should have been extra cautious to the point of paranoia.
#66
What happened?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Around here somewhere
Posts: 7,927
Bikes: 3 Rollfasts, 3 Schwinns, a Shelby and a Higgins Flightliner in a pear tree!
Mentioned: 57 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1835 Post(s)
Liked 292 Times
in
255 Posts
Well, there you said it: SHOULD. As bad as anything gets, no changes occur without a cause. We are all sorry that this accident occurred but shoulda, woulda and coulda don't have a time machine. All you can do now is correct a problem, which is a lot more helpful than screaming about it at the moment.
Improvement is sympathy.
Improvement is sympathy.
__________________
I don't know nothing, and I memorized it in school and got this here paper I'm proud of to show it.
#67
Banned
And none of this would be on the news if the driver had done the right thing and slowed to a crawl until she passed safely.
Ultimately, the 'right tool' mostly matters as to how the user employs it. If he was cycling at full speed right in the middle of the bridge, she was STILL going to go down.
If he was going to drive a motorized vehicle (for convenience, work, play, whatever) on the bridge, he should have been extra cautious to the point of paranoia.
Ultimately, the 'right tool' mostly matters as to how the user employs it. If he was cycling at full speed right in the middle of the bridge, she was STILL going to go down.
If he was going to drive a motorized vehicle (for convenience, work, play, whatever) on the bridge, he should have been extra cautious to the point of paranoia.
Our DOT would never have put up a permanent sign telling non motorized traffic to beware of a bad choice in repair vehicle size for a particular bridge of this nature.
I can just imagine the pandemonium if a DOT or contractor decided to operate their oversize vehicles in the same manner on a public roadway as is being done on this bridge.
#69
Newbie
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
It used to be only for good reasons such as carrying tools. They had strict limitations on their driving: pedestrian pace, stop for primary users. Scooter drivers would have to wait until the truck got to the bridge lift section where it's wide enough for the two vehicles to share the space.
#70
Unlisted member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 6,192
Bikes: Specialized Hardrock
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1376 Post(s)
Liked 432 Times
in
297 Posts
Illinois enacted a law within the past few years that greatly increased the penalties for hitting a roadway worker, police or firemen working by the side of the roadway with a vehicle. It makes you wonder how that law would apply in this situation, as well as wish that we were important enough to get the same protection.
#71
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1,143
Bikes: Fully customized 11-spd MTB built on 2014 Santa Cruz 5010 frame; Brompton S2E-X 2014; Brompton M3E 2014
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
The "right tool" would have been one that did not adversely affect pedestrian and bicycle traffic.....even at a crawl, using over sized vehicles and making pedestrians and cyclists squeeze up against the retaining wall or lift their bicycles, is not good planning on the DOT or any bridge contractor's part. In my locale, our local DOT would be using far smaller vehicles designed to not to adversely affect ped or cycling traffic's ability to pass, and in the event a much larger vehicle had to be used, our DOT would have given considerably advanced warning, closed the bridge, provided or directed traffic to use an alternate route, and made repairs during very low traffic hours.
Our DOT would never have put up a permanent sign telling non motorized traffic to beware of a bad choice in repair vehicle size for a particular bridge of this nature.
I can just imagine the pandemonium if a DOT or contractor decided to operate their oversize vehicles in the same manner on a public roadway as is being done on this bridge.
Our DOT would never have put up a permanent sign telling non motorized traffic to beware of a bad choice in repair vehicle size for a particular bridge of this nature.
I can just imagine the pandemonium if a DOT or contractor decided to operate their oversize vehicles in the same manner on a public roadway as is being done on this bridge.
Right tool for right job is a no-brainer, but the reality is that's not always possible or workable.
I work in the industrial safety industry (harnesses, helmets, gas detection, etc) and there's several layers of safety procedures before a deadly accident can occur in standard practice. There are rules at every level to minimize this problem, but the minor infractions are still going to slip through. For 99% of them, nothing significant happens, and life goes on.
#72
Banned
It's that 1% that gets extremely costly at times, and why our local DOT does not operate in the manner as does the DOT that manages this particular pathway on this bridge, and why our local DOT goes the extra distance when it comes to implementing safety measures.
#73
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1,143
Bikes: Fully customized 11-spd MTB built on 2014 Santa Cruz 5010 frame; Brompton S2E-X 2014; Brompton M3E 2014
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
There's no easy answers - we've had discussions with hotels to install Escape Smoke Hoods (for prevention of smoke inhalation during a fire - the leading cause of death) in each room, but all these go into the cost of maintaining the room, and will need to be passed down to customers. So they declined, but WHAT IF?? WHAT IF A BABY DIED BECAUSE THERE WASN'T A SMOKE HOOD WHEN THEY NEEDED ONE?!
It comes down to an 'acceptable risk', which means accidents are STILL going to happen. There's absolutely no limit to the amount of protection one could have in any given situation. You may think it's sufficient but others may disagree, and vice versa.
#74
Banned
This is the divide that makes it exceedingly hard to implement safety measures......
It comes down to an 'acceptable risk', which means accidents are STILL going to happen. There's absolutely no limit to the amount of protection one could have in any given situation. You may think it's sufficient but others may disagree, and vice versa.
It comes down to an 'acceptable risk', which means accidents are STILL going to happen. There's absolutely no limit to the amount of protection one could have in any given situation. You may think it's sufficient but others may disagree, and vice versa.
#75
What happened?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Around here somewhere
Posts: 7,927
Bikes: 3 Rollfasts, 3 Schwinns, a Shelby and a Higgins Flightliner in a pear tree!
Mentioned: 57 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1835 Post(s)
Liked 292 Times
in
255 Posts
This is the divide that makes it exceedingly hard to implement safety measures.
There's no easy answers - we've had discussions with hotels to install Escape Smoke Hoods (for prevention of smoke inhalation during a fire - the leading cause of death) in each room, but all these go into the cost of maintaining the room, and will need to be passed down to customers. So they declined, but WHAT IF?? WHAT IF A BABY DIED BECAUSE THERE WASN'T A SMOKE HOOD WHEN THEY NEEDED ONE?!
It comes down to an 'acceptable risk', which means accidents are STILL going to happen. There's absolutely no limit to the amount of protection one could have in any given situation. You may think it's sufficient but others may disagree, and vice versa.
There's no easy answers - we've had discussions with hotels to install Escape Smoke Hoods (for prevention of smoke inhalation during a fire - the leading cause of death) in each room, but all these go into the cost of maintaining the room, and will need to be passed down to customers. So they declined, but WHAT IF?? WHAT IF A BABY DIED BECAUSE THERE WASN'T A SMOKE HOOD WHEN THEY NEEDED ONE?!
It comes down to an 'acceptable risk', which means accidents are STILL going to happen. There's absolutely no limit to the amount of protection one could have in any given situation. You may think it's sufficient but others may disagree, and vice versa.
__________________
I don't know nothing, and I memorized it in school and got this here paper I'm proud of to show it.