BUT, hey, I am learning and thinking a lot.
At other forums, I can say people are not cyclist or not serious about it. Here, that is not the case.
I am confident that I will learn a lot about whether or not I continue to outside of park paths and trails, and which side I ultimately fight.
That is one of greatest characteristics. I do look to see what is worth my efforts.
This thread is invaluable.

That is one of greatest characteristics. I do look to see what is worth my efforts.

Bicyclists and motorcyclists alike face tougher odds because there aren't the passive safety devices that are available to car and truck drivers. I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that this is anything other than an unfortunate and tragic accident. Since this likely would have been a minor fenderbender if another car was involved, we don't need to crucify the driver.


I think I completely disagree with each of those statements. That would make sense, given our different views.

This thread is total devoid of factual evidence. So far the only thing I've been able to ascertain is that

-A bicyclist was stuck and subsequently died
-A van was involved in the incident
-The driver was 57
-The driver stated he could not avoid the bike

I'd say, in terms of the AnS forum, that's enough evidence to declare premeditated murder.

Thankfully we have a more through law enforcement / legal system to investigate and determine fault.

This thread is total devoid of factual evidence. So far the only thing I've been able to ascertain is that

-A bicyclist was stuck and subsequently died
-A van was involved in the incident
-The driver was 57
-The driver stated he could no avoid the bike

I'd say, in terms of the AnS forum, that's enough evidence to declare premeditated murder. :lol:

Sadly, you're right.

Thankfully we have a more through law enforcement / legal system to investigate and determine fault.Right once again.

Not that I don't think there's room for improvement....

Are we supposed to start hating backpackers now, too?


Okay. :)

"I think I completely disagree with each of those statements. That would make sense, given our different views."Ky Venom, you disagree that bicycles and motorcycles have less passive safety devices than cars? Passive safety devices include things like seatbelts, airbags, and crumple zones. I'm not stating a viewpoint, I'm stating a fact.

Ky Venom, you disagree that bicycles and motorcycles have less passive safety devices than cars? Passive safety devices include things like seatbelts, airbags, and crumple zones.

BJ! DOn't go there......next thing we know, Federal regulations are going to require full body armor, enclosed roll cage, 6 axis 7 G restraint system, air bags and a crumple zone and the addition of nomex to the Lycra for fire safety and a light road bike will weigh 1500 pounds!:eek:

I think a post on another forum sums it up well.

Posted 29 July 2007 03:53 PM
This is terrible, the day these drivers respect bike riders is the day a family member of their own dies in the hands of a driver while on a bike.

BJ! DOn't go there......next thing we know, Federal regulations are going to require full body armor...Ya know, I've actually considered eventually getting some BMX armor for under the hi-viz commute-wear... :lol:

Tom, methinks you're joking about requiring passive safety devices for cyclists! :D

Tom, methinks you're joking about requiring passive safety devices for cyclists! :D

Methinks you are right!:p

I'm not. :p

http://i16.ebayimg.com/06/i/08/c5/b3/7e_1.JPG

Bicyclists and motorcyclists alike face tougher odds because there aren't the passive safety devices that are available to car and truck drivers. I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that this is anything other than an unfortunate and tragic accident. Since this likely would have been a minor fenderbender if another car was involved, we don't need to crucify the driver.

OK... IF I have to...

1) I feel cyclist face tougher odds because people do not follow the laws. I feel the equipment/devices point is a non-issue.

2) I have seen plenty of evidence to suggest that this is anything but an unfortunate and tragic accident. I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that this is an unfortunate and tragic accident.

3) Since this likely would NOT have been a minor fenderbender, had it been another car was involved, we need to crucify the driver.

Although we would have legs of steel after pedaling around on our half-ton bicycles for a couple months! :beer:

I have come across a number of bridges where there is signage requiring cyclists "to dismount and use sidewalk". Me thinks as a lawsuit prevention! Though most bridges I have seen them on are narrow and on highways. :rolleyes:

This thread is total devoid of factual evidence. So far the only thing I've been able to ascertain is that

-A bicyclist was stuck and subsequently died
-A van was involved in the incident
-The driver was 57
-The driver stated he could no avoid the bike

I'd say, in terms of the AnS forum, that's enough evidence to declare premeditated murder.

Thankfully we have a more through law enforcement / legal system to investigate and determine fault.

I understand. Every life can be summed up as, " they were born, they lived, they died". I guess it is just a matter of details. It all depends upon what one notices.

The only way that bike could not have been avoided was due to unsafe operation. There had to be extremely excessive speed, drugs/alcohol in use, and/or agressive driving (crowding) involved to result in this.

Thankfully, I trust my judgement more than law enforcement.

The legal system may investigate now that pressure is being applied.

OK... I do like that.

I'm not. :p

http://i16.ebayimg.com/06/i/08/c5/b3/7e_1.JPG

Hey Ky Venom, if you think you're angry now, check this out. Here in Oregon you can kill a law abiding cyclist while driving with a suspended license, carelessly driving and passing in a no passing zone. She paid a $1000.00 fine w/monthly installments, and no jail time. Links below, please read.

http://bikeportland.org/2007/06/09/fatal-crash-in-washington-county/

http://bikeportland.org/2007/06/30/driver-in-odonnell-fatality-pleads-no-contest/

I do understand your frustration. I live by the highest traveled two lane bridge in Oregon. Old and narrow. Recently rated a 2 on a scale of 100 for structural integrity. There is a narrow sidewalk on one side that is shared by peds and cyclists. Technically the bikes should be in the lane, but it is to narrow and unsafe. Some cyclists take the lane, but not most, because of the high traffic volume and narrow lanes it really is scary. Usually, it works. It's not following the letter of the law, but it is keeping cyclists alive. The bridge has so many problems of it's own, no dead cyclist will solve any of them.

Good luck with the advocacy, I think you'll learn that it can become quite contentious.

How many people actually walk across the bridge anyway?

More people walk than ride a bike across.

WOW! This is an awesome post. Thank you.


Hey Ky Venom, if you think you're angry now, check this out. Here in Oregon you can kill a law abiding cyclist while driving with a suspended license, carelessly driving and passing in a no passing zone. She paid a $1000.00 fine w/monthly installments, and no jail time. Links below, please read.

http://bikeportland.org/2007/06/09/fatal-crash-in-washington-county/

http://bikeportland.org/2007/06/30/driver-in-odonnell-fatality-pleads-no-contest/

I do understand your frustration. I live by the highest traveled two lane bridge in Oregon. Old and narrow. Recently rated a 2 on a scale of 100 for structural integrity. There is a narrow sidewalk on one side that is shared by peds and cyclists. Technically the bikes should be in the lane, but it is to narrow and unsafe. Some cyclists take the lane, but not most, because of the high traffic volume and narrow lanes it really is scary. Usually, it works. It's not following the letter of the law, but it is keeping cyclists alive. The bridge has so many problems of it's own, no dead cyclist will solve any of them.

Good luck with the advocacy, I think you'll learn that it can become quite contentious.

Nope. Wrong guy. I have the scars to prove I am not bulletproof. I "about" your age. Like most, I have mellowed out a LOT in years.

Ya coulda fooled me.
If you say so. Your posts appear to be written by a teenager

Ya coulda fooled me.
Your posts appear to be written by a teenager

Thank you. I work hard to stay young.



Sua Sponte ! (http://www.christianitytoday.com/moi/2002/006/dec/24.24.html)

Ky Venom (http://profiles.yahoo.com/kyvenom)

I feel so badly for that poor man and his family.

But to add a comment to general conversation, it's not illegal everywhere to ride sidewalks.
At any rate, I'm always going to ride where it's safest for me to be at that moment, without endangering or harrassing anyone else. If that means getting a ticket somewhere, sometime, for riding where I shouldn't, so be it. I can pay the ticket and live to ride another day. I'm not interested in being "dead right".

Baroque, thanks for the follow-up support to my post.

[QUOTE=dobber;4958639]This thread is total devoid of factual evidence. So far the only thing I've been able to ascertain is that

-A bicyclist was stuck and subsequently died
-A van was involved in the incident
-The driver was 57
-The driver stated he could not avoid the bike
[quote]

Wow, were the brakes out on the car? Was the cyclist invisible?

what part of "ITS ILLEGAL TO RIDE A BICYCLE ON THE SIDEWALK" do you not understand?

Laws vary from state to state. In Ohio riding on the sidewalk IS permitted. Municipalities in Ohio may not force you to ride on a sidewalk (some have tried) but they may prohibit riding on a sidewalk.

Ride a bicycle on that stretch of bridge and I guarantee no police officers will pull their cruisers to the side to write a ticket. They would rather cyclists be safe than bother someone minding their own business.

Wow, were the brakes out on the car? Was the cyclist invisible?

Beats me. But since we're compiling a list.

-Was the cyclist riding in a lawful manner
-Was the cyclist sober
-Did the cyclist suddenly swerve or somehow wander unpredictably

Car drivers aren't the only ones to be impaired, fail to observe traffic regulations or act in an unexpected manner.

When you can show the cyclist is above reproach in this situation then you can proceed with your self-righteous attack against the driver.

what part of "ITS ILLEGAL TO RIDE A BICYCLE ON THE SIDEWALK" do you not understand?

Laws are different in different states, towns, and even in the same town in different areas. It's legal in my state to ride on the sidewalk, and when on the sidewalk I have all the rights and responsibilities of a pedestrain. There are a lot of laws addressing speed, passing, crosswalks etc for bikes on sidewalks and cross walks.

As soon as I get on the road I am a vehicle..etc. etc.. In one town there are signs prohibiting bikes on one stretch of sidewalk. Not others. There are neighboring towns with opposite rules about riding on the sidewalk in my neighboring state.

Although we would have legs of steel after pedaling around on our half-ton bicycles for a couple months! :beer:


I do. :D

In South Carolina, there is no bicycle law that prohibits riding on the sidewalk. But some local towns around here like Ridge Spring and Prosperity, SC have local ordinances banning it. Of course, we got very few sidewalks except in the business parts of town down here.

As far as the tragedic accident, if the driver was impaired with alcohol or illegal drugs, it should be 2nd degree murder. But otherwise, it's a sad accident and if the driver is at fault, the family probably could sue the driver.

As far as backpackers disliking bicycles, some off-road bicycles zoom by backpackers on trails going way too fast. Some backpackers don't like bicycles on off road paths because of the damage to the environment. My opinion is horses do far worse damage than bicycles do.

Of course.

The man was ran down in the street like a dog. (http://cycledog.blogspot.com/2007/07/cyclists-are-no-better-than-dogs.html)
Please explain to me how this was murder. Are you just assuming that the driver purposely tried to hit the cyclist?

I really don't know what it means to run down a dog. I have never done it, nor do I know anyone that has, is this common where you live? Do people around you drive around looking for dogs to run over? I hope not, since I have always like going to Louisville and will have to stop going there when I have my dog with me. I have seen some accidents where the dog ran under the car. Are you saying that the cyclist threw himself in front of the van? That would make sense since the article you linked to had the driver saying the cyclist swerved into him.

I would appreciate it if you would not accuse someone of murder when you don't have the facts. If I had to guess, I would say something like vehicle homicide, not murder. But again, that can only be an assumption, because I don't have the facts.

Ky Venom
Thanks for this post .Keep beating the drum.
I find many of the responses to this incident repulsive.

quote from notsofast: "(not every driver knows your stupid law, nor cares about YOUR STUPID LAW)."

then they shouldn't have a driver's license, especially in the state of Kentucky, where those questions are on the test ... just a question, are you 12?

Ky Venom ... thanks for posting, and keep up the advocacy work ...

I


He better have been on the sidewalk, because that road is too narrow for a car and bike. If that road to be ridden bike must take the whole lane.

Then take the whole lane.

Even if all the cars are observing the speed limit, that's a high rate of speed to expect a cyclist to keep up. For comparison, the peloton in the 2007 Tour de France was traveling at 30-34 mph on the flat routes. To expect that of the average cyclist for the length of that bridge is ludicrous... And that assumes that the cars are observing the speed limit, which they clearly aren't.

The bridge needs to be re-thought to accommodate cyclists, and the cheapest way to do that is to mark out cycle lanes on the sidewalk.

Wrong- 15mph speed limit, heavily enforced, will pay for itself. Maybe even generate some extra revenue.

Frankly, I'd ride that sidewalk as well! I'm familiar with that bridge and I could care less if it's illegal to ride that sidewalk......right of way and take the lane doesn't equate with a Suicide pact to my mind!:eek:


An unfortunate and tragic death to be sure. Looking at the sidewalk I think I would have been on it too (regardless of the law). Sometimes I have to bow to the cagers to protect myself. I might not like it, but I like living better. Being right and legal but being dead does not appeal to me...I don't fancy being a Martyr for the cause.

Reducing traffic to artificially-slow speeds will cause accidents. That would be like randomly reducing speeds to 30 m.p.h. on interstate highways. The confusion and varying speeds would create more problems than it would solve.

KY - wow, I mean the bicycling groups need more people like you and everything, but man - you're hitting us across the forehead with a 2X4 here - like way too many times. We don't even have the answers. Cities are lucky to put bike lanes in, Bicycle clubs do no like bike lanes, OY.

Many (and I'm not even using the word I'd like to use - such as MOST) drivers are uninformed, meaning ignorant and really don't give a flying fart about cyclist legal rights on the road. I'm quite frustrated with this - but have found myself in some not good situations (try having a big, big man jump out of his car at you as you had just informed him "Thank you very much for cutting me off, @#$@, perhaps you should ..." -I think you can get the general picture) so I'm trying to be on my best behavior and not responding to some of the instances I have happen to me.

And as for the advocacy part - I'm entrenched in that too. Just have to keep trying to change and improve things. I personally am quite dismayed at the number of new drivers around me now that display a total disregard of anyone but themselves on the road - forget about even being a bicyclist. Personally I think the whole drivers license testing should be revamped anyway - and update it. I don't know how many questions a drivers test has on it now a days (took mine way too many years ago), but I sincerely doubt there's one about Other vehicles on the road besides motorists (bicyclists, Amish, for ex). So if no question - no need to read those pages of information in the manual. Meh.

You can give people all the information, talk to them more - and again - and you hit your head on the wall cause they just don't freaking get it.

But I'll still keep trying too.

But gotta say, you've been whacking us with this and have seen the responses .... I do admit though there were a few backpacker responses that were nasty - but I wonder if that was because of the biclying(loveshack) versus backpacker(mallwalker) thing ... I like to think that when the bicyclists vacation on the backpackers area - it's in good fun, pokes here and there. Hey, having a sense of humor is awesome. Meh.

But since you've posted this in three forums, perhaps it's time to take this to League of American bicyclists and their associated partners ---- cause I'm at a loss here as what to do. Especially seeing the crass comments that have evolved from the initial postings.

Time to let go - or try to change things the legal way. :)

I have a question. Was the rider on the side walk or on the road???


He better have been on the sidewalk, because that road is too narrow for a car and bike. If that road to be ridden bike must take the whole lane.

+1 That looks like a pretty cozy sidewalk to me. I know that some folks ride in the street to make a statement, but when you are on a long, tight bridge like that, it is better to leave arguments for another time. Right or wrong, legal or not, a bicyclist simply does not win the battle against an automobile in a collission.

Some argue that it is against the law for bicyclist to ride on the sidewalk, but in cases like this, it is probably better to fudge a little and ride the sidewalk anyway.

If the bicyclist was on the sidewalk and the autmobile jumped the curb to hit him (like what happened in Wisconsin this month), well THAT is an even more frightening circumstance.

"...I know that some folks ride in the street to make a statement, but when you are on a long, tight bridge like that, it is better to leave arguments for another time. Right or wrong, legal or not, a bicyclist simply does not win the battle against an automobile in a collision. Some argue that it is against the law for bicyclist to ride on the sidewalk, but in cases like this, it is probably better to fudge a little and ride the sidewalk anyway..."Precisely. You are 100% correct. The goal is to stay alive so the discussion of bicycle rights can continue with as many ambassadors as possible.

Murder?

I think vehicular manslaughter would be appropriate.

What is the speed limit on the bridge? That is the all-important question.

It makes the difference whether "I didn't see him in time" is a legitimate excuse or not. If the speed limit is 30, then the driver was either speeding or not paying attention. And I would have no problem taking the lane on a bridge where the speed limit was low and it had two lanes in each direction.

I think that calling it murder is extreme, that is unless you subscribe to the theory that the driver had malicous aforethought... "hey, there's a cyclist, I'm going to kill him for kicks". Vehicular manslaughter would be more appropiate. That requires criminal negligance or a violation of traffic safety laws. Perhaps the family could hire someone to recreate the accident and show that the van driver must have been exceeding the speed limit by 20 MPH or something to throw the cyclist that far. That might get them a "violation of traffic safety laws" angle.

Otherwise, they have to rely upon criminal negligance... that is, that the driver did not act with the caution of a reasonable person under the circumstances. Quite obvioulsy the accident investigator did not find the dirver to be criminally negligant, thus no charges were brought against him.

Just because someone (wheter another driver, a pedestrian, or a cyclist) is killed by a vehicle, does not make it murder. It does make it tragic, which this was.

Reducing traffic to artificially-slow speeds will cause accidents. That would be like randomly reducing speeds to 30 m.p.h. on interstate highways. The confusion and varying speeds would create more problems than it would solve.

There wouldn't be varying speeds. Enforce the limit very aggressively. $1500 fines for the first offense, loss of license and $2500 for the second.

Interstates are limited access, limited use roads, they would require different rules.

What is the speed limit on the bridge? That is the all-important question.

It makes the difference whether "I didn't see him in time" is a legitimate excuse or not. If the speed limit is 30, then the driver was either speeding or not paying attention. And I would have no problem taking the lane on a bridge where the speed limit was low and it had two lanes in each direction.

How is the speed limit important? How could you not see someone in your lane in plenty of time regardless of how fast you were going with sightlines as straight as they are on the bridge?

My gut feeling is that the cyclist riding over that bridge was probably riding too far to the right and letting motorists squeeze by on his left. He may have swerved a bit to the left at the wrong time while this guy was passing and got hit. By riding so far right, motorists coming from behind were not likely to notice him as he wasn't causing traffic to change lanes.

I'm not taking side on who's fault the accident was but I will say that regardless of lane width or the presence of a sidewalk, I see no problems with riding in the traffic lane (in the middle of it, like I belong there) over that bridge. There's a passing lane which means any delay for motorists will be minimal as I doubt that bridge is jam packed 24 hours a day. Even if it was, it takes what, 5 minutes to ride a bike a mile? Which means a motorist who's such a bad driver that they can't pull off a lane chage would have to go 12mph for 5 minutes instead of 50 for a total delay of less than 4 minutes. Oh the horror ;)

Laws vary from state to state. In Ohio riding on the sidewalk IS permitted. Municipalities in Ohio may not force you to ride on a sidewalk (some have tried) but they may prohibit riding on a sidewalk.

While cycling on the sidewalk is technically illegal, now since there has been an accident what judge would fault you for riding on the sidewalk?

http://www.louisvilleky.gov/BikeLouisville/bike_laws/default.htm

I am glad that in Pittsburgh, we may ride on the sidewalks without getting a ticket, (except in business districts).

Sounds like an old fashioned accident to me. I love when things get blown out of proportion to make 'cagers' look like enemies in some made up war.

People are dying. What is the correct "proportion"?

My condolances to the bike rider and his family, and I will not pass judgement on the motorist since I wasn't there, and since the facts available are too sparce. If I ever had the oportunity to ride on that bridge, I'd probably be on the sidewalk, but if I did choose the roadway I'd have blinkies with a enough firepower to make motorists think they're in Time Square.

My sympathy to the family and friends. If you are so intent however to cross this bridge, the sidewalk is an option. Yes, I know it's illegal, but it is an affirmative defense in court. Court you say... try this....it is better to be judged by 12 than buried by 6. I'm truly sorry for a fellow bike riders death however in light of this maybe the present coarse is not the correct one. I say use the sidewalk and your legislators.