Car on pedestrian bridge hits cyclist
 

I don't know if this has been posted yet but I didn't see it. Police say no charges to be filed.
Woman Riding Her Bike on a Pedestrian Bridge Records Something That Shouldn?t Be There ? but Why Police Won?t Investigate the Incident | Video | TheBlaze.com

That's really strange that the police won't even investigate, and all of the excuses are so lame that it's even more curious. Officer wasn't called to the scene, no no-vehicle signs etc.

BTW this is from the video, so there's no excuse for not knowing who was involved anyway:

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=387497http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=387498

I find it amazing that neither the cyclists or motorist attempted to stop before the collision.

According to the news article, the cyclist said she just had no time to react. I can see how it can happen, when something totally unexpected happens like that.

Police responses like this are a good reason why it may often be best to lay on the ground and have an ambulance called. That will usually insure police presence, a full report, some level of investigation, responsible parties insurance coverage, and greater responsibility for no charges.

cranky

Good advice. In a deal like this that is so outrageous, the cyclist should have just laid on the ground and moaned.

Really police-------------what the hell was a car doing on a pedestrian bridge. Why the hell wouldnt they give the driver a ticket?

If there is any more action by the police, please fill us in. I think this is the most outrageous bike accident yet!!!!

It's going to be hard to top this.

That is probably true. Regardless of the possibility, that, even though a cyclist may not be physically injured. They wouldn't get charged with leaving the scene of an accident, unless it involved a pedestrian.

Here in San Diego we have some bike paths that are maintained by Caltrans... and yes, they do drive on the path... but it is a well marked vehicle and there is enough room for cyclists to "go into the other lane." I have also seen police cars on some paths.

Frankly I think a path should be more than wide enough for a standard vehicle, so that such paths can be well maintained and for emergency vehicle access. From my experience a good well designed two way path needs to be about 12 feet wide... and if motor vehicles are about 8 feet wide (8'6" max) then 12 feet should work fine.

We had a path here at one time (back in the '70s) that required a special narrow streetsweeper. It was quite a nice path, but of course over time, the city failed to maintain the streetsweeper, and thus failed to maintain the path. That path has now also been "cut" with dozens of driveways, and somewhat been rendered useless.

Everyone here was lucky. This could have been worse since pedestrian bridges are built to a lower weight bearing standard than roadway bridges.

Of course one, car is different than a full load of cars, but I'm a bit surprised that the police seem so blase about it. They're right that the question of damages to the cyclist is a civil/insurance issue, but they should be more proactive in taking the report of the incident and forwarding it to the appropriate agency.

Around here, paths and bridges closed to motor traffic often have bollards at the ends so cars simply can't get through.

BTW- I know people don't expect cars there, but the car was in vies for a decent interval, and there was no hint of a reaction by the cyclist until impact.

In the city I live in, the city fire department runs the ambulances in conjunction with our neighboring city. Medicaid (Oregon Health Plan) and Medicare only reimburse them about $400 for an ambulance ride. It costs the city about double that to provide this essential service. As a result, people who are not on OHP or Medicare get to pay $1600 plus a mileage fee. That would be one expensive police report if you don't have ambulance coverage. (I purchase our local firemed coverage more to support the program than out of any sense that I will ever need an ambulance ride.)

However, you are correct that many police departments, including the one in my city, won't take reports on traffic wrecks unless someone is killed or takes a ride in the ambulance. This is part of why it is so difficult to get decent data on collisions involving cyclists; most of us walk away from these incidents, so there is no official report of the incident.

That could be a mistake. It's not too hard for a crowd of pedestrians to have a higher weight/sq.ft. loading than bumper-bumper cars in a traffic jam. The weight loading of the Golden Gate bridge during its 50-year anniversary when it was fully occupied by pedestrians was estimated to be about twice what it normally sees during a rush-hour jam of vehicles and the bridge did flatten somewhat as a result.

I'm just putting myself in their shoes being on an enclosed MUT bridge with a limited line of sight.

As a cyclists I would be expecting the unexpected, riding within my line of sight and skill level, I have encountered service vehicles, mowers, kids on motorized scooters, ATVs, horses, and even a model airplain.
If I was in that situation as a motorists in an official capacity or by a boneheaded maneuver, I would be ideling along with lights and flashers on expecting folks to not be paying attention or expecting a large vehicle.

If I was the cyclists I would be embarrassed to post or report the incident and would take it as a lesson learned. If I was the motorist, as a CDL holder I would report it to the police and my company as required by law and accept the consequences of my stupidity. Failure to report it would be an automatic loss of my licence and job.

Yes, and some lightly built pedestrian viaducts have collapsed as a result. It's also why balconies collapse when packed edge to edge with folks watching some kind of event in the street below.

Precisely why pedestrian bridges should be built for a higher weight/sq.ft. loading relative to typical automotive bridges - not lower as you indicated in your previous note.

I could easily say the same thing. I will refrain from saying so, given that I was not in her shoes.

She was riding at a speed that would allow her to stop if there was something in her path. Unfortunately, she was not prepared for a speeding object that takes up almost the entire roadway to be coming at her. Nor was she prepared for a helicopter to land on her, but that does not mean she wasn't riding perfectly safely for those conditions.

Not sure what your point is.

Isn't the whole reason to post and comment on incidents like this to learn from them, and hopefully not repeate them ourselves? Obviously the motorist was AFU, but were the actions of the cyclist absolutely perfect? To me it seems that possibly she was going a little too fast for where she was riding, I'm not trying to say she's at fault.

Maybe I'm wrong, perhaps A&S is intended to be a gossip thread with no educational value?

As far as I can tell from the video, she was riding at a reasonable speed. The point, though, is that the SUV was coming her way and taking up the whole width of the path. She could have been riding at 5 MPH and still gotten hit if the driver didn't slow down in time. In the video, he certainly didn't seem to slow down fast enough.

I will be honest. If I were her, I would NOT expect an SUV coming from the opposite direction taking up the entire width of the path like that.

Yes. And one lesson here is to notify your city/county/state of places where you ride that should be ped/bike/disabled only but does not do an adequate job of preventing idiots from driving on them.

Law enforcement questions cyclist's validity since they were videoing their ride, LEO won't investigate since they were not called to the scene, not willing to determine injuries to cyclist since they left the scene of the collision, cyclist called into question for riding too fast by BF member :rolleyes:, DOT hands out diversionary response..... sounds like cyclists still have a ways to go in getting better treatment.

Yikes. I bet the police investigate now since she contacted the local news.

VDOT.

-mr. bill

"The accident occurred when a bridge tender was en route for a shift change. The pathway is used by employees for this purpose and signs are posted in both directions advising caution and to be aware of vehicles using the pathway."

Definitely not a DOT vehicle with warning lights, which should be the only vehicles operating on the bridge, plus the DOT vehicles should be of a certain width and operated at a very low speed that does not adversely effect pedestrian and bicycle traffic.