exile

I agree they should use smaller vehicles to service certain pathways. I just don't understand why the Police will leave this up to VDOT when it doesn't seem like an actual VDOT vehicle (like others stated this is a personal vehicle of a VDOT contractor).

There is no excuse to be late at VDOT, you're allowed to drive on the pathways with your own personal vehicle .

dynodonn 

Then there's having to contend with this....


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.

keyven

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?

CB HI

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.

keyven

That's true. I'm not saying that's the reason at all - people use less-than-efficient tools all the time for the sake of convenience. The number of lone drivers in massive SUVs on any given weekday morning is a prime example.

It's only when an incident happens that the practice would be called into question. Like this one.

kickstart

Contractors should be able to use whatever vehicle they see fit to conduct their business, but they should use it professionally and responsibly.

dynodonn 

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.

kickstart

Agreed, is my post confusing?

dynodonn 

Not at all..... You're for letting contractors choose whatever vehicle they see fit to use, and then hoping that they will operate them professionally and responsibly.

kickstart

And if they don't, take the appropriate action.

CB HI

Do you really believe that contractor should be allowed to choose to operate his private vehicle on that pathway?

kickstart

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.

CB HI

It is the improper tool. That is how it matters.

Rollfast

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.

keyven

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.

Rollfast

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.

dynodonn 

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.

oudeis1963

The vehicle was registered to the subcontracting company. Cyclist mentions that in her opinion piece.

oudeis1963

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.

no motor?

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.

keyven

Agreed, I'm just playing devil's advocate.

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.

dynodonn 

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.

keyven

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.

dynodonn 

Our DOT seems to have gone on to being better at minimizing risks and inconveniences to the general public, than the DOT in question, eventually in their being able to listen to public comments, probably a product of being hit in the civil wallet enough times.

Rollfast

If would make more sense to just get the child out.