My brother was on a the GG brige on a very narrow "path" (aprox 7 feet across), guard rail on on side protecting you from the water below guard rail on the other side protecting you from traffic. he was riding slightly up the other rider slightly down hill. Since pedestrians arn't allowd on this side of the bridge cyclists ride very fast and there is no room for error. There are no markings on the path bikers going either direction are allowed full use of path. The two of them collied on the bridge, both bikes are broken, both had scratches on there legs. the other guy jumped up and began to yell, I'm gonna sue, profanities and so fourth. My brother was will in to suck up the cost of his own bike and move on, the other fellow is not. The police where called, no citations where issued. My brother is in fear of being sued by the other guy. Is there a case for the other fellow. He was riding with another guy and has another witness who was riding behind, my brother does not have any witnesses. I think the guy would like to say my brother veard wide. My brother does not recall this and like I said earlier there is no room for error, so wide could be 12 inches, which on a road or path is no big deal. My brother was on a charity practice ride with 60 other people, there where a lot of novice cyclists on the bridge that day. My brother and the other guy are both very good cyclists. I think the other guy was going way to fast for the conditions. My brother is not looking to sue, he just looking to protect himself. Can anyone help me with some basic bike laws?
thanks,
Blue Order
10-30-07, 01:11 PM
There's no way to know if the other guy has a case or not, without knowing what the cause of the accident was. In any event, if one of the cyclists has homeowner's or renters insurance, he's covered for this accident. If not, your brother might want to consult with a bicycle attorney, if he gets sued.
lessismore
10-30-07, 01:21 PM
the cause is unclear. the riding area is very narrow and people ride very fast. I came apon the scene about 2 minutes after the accident so i don't know what happend. after riding on the bridge for many years i can guess this is what happend. The other guy was going slightly down hill so he may have been going faster and they both where riding close to the center. i think they came apon eachother faster than they anticipated and they had no place to go, there is no room for error on the bridge. I think if this was on a different strech of road the accident wouldn't have happend. I think they just had no place to go, so they veard and both hit opposite guardrails.
maddyfish
10-30-07, 01:29 PM
the cause is unclear. .
That is not quite right.
To me the cause is quite clear; two fast moving vehicles operating in an un-marked 7 ft wide path.
Had both riders been in the traffic lanes going in the correct direction, they would not have collided.
Mr. Underbridge
10-30-07, 01:54 PM
That is not quite right.
To me the cause is quite clear; two fast moving vehicles operating in an un-marked 7 ft wide path.
Had both riders been in the traffic lanes going in the correct direction, they would not have collided.
Have you ever seen, let alone *ridden*, the Golden Gate Bridge? That's Highway 101! I'm fairly sure it's not allowed in traffic lanes.
I realize that facts get in the way of your agenda sometimes, but come on. For those guys to cross San Fransisco Bay (north to south), I believe there are two choices: the path they were on, and ferries. Or a hundred mile detour south and around the bay.
maddyfish
10-30-07, 02:04 PM
^^^ illegal or not. If illegal, then it should not be, bikes are better off on the road. Separate but equal does not would with race, it does not work with traffic.
zeytoun
10-30-07, 03:58 PM
To me the cause is quite clear; two fast moving vehicles operating in an un-marked 7 ft wide path.
Had both riders been in the traffic lanes going in the correct direction, they would not have collided.What a hilarious response, and all too typical for this forum.that's what I call Knee jerkus interuptus...
The case IS pretty clear.... the cyclist going the wrong way was probably at fault...
lessismore
10-30-07, 04:07 PM
Thanks for all the backing on bikes on the GG bridge. Bikea are NOT allowd on the roadway, for good reason, the cars are going 55 MPH, this is 101 a major freeway that runs the leangth of california. I don't even think scooters are allowed on the roadway.
Any way the bridge people have done something smart though, the west side of the bridge, is bikers only,no pedestrians. The photos help explane traffic on the bridge but they do show pedestrians on boths sides this has changed. Any way bikers are allowed to travel in both directions on one side of the bridge, on the path. Neither one was traveling in the wrong direction.
I-Like-To-Bike
10-30-07, 04:09 PM
Typical A&S idiocy.
Yeah, it should be legal to ride on the Golden Gate bridge. I'm sure that wouldn't have an adverse effect on traffic...what a loon!
p.s. You get extra silly bonus points for the comparison to racial issues.
The loony post almost meets the gold standard set by another BF poster about 2 years ago who whined and cried about Chicago cyclists having their freedom curtailed because of the restrictions on bicycling on the Lake Shore Drive. That freedom fighter, also from Ohio, also didn't have a clue about the traffic conditions on the freedom road.
lessismore
10-30-07, 04:13 PM
The collision happend on the strait away section of the bridge. But man those towers suck to.
-=Łem in Pa=-
10-30-07, 04:14 PM
First post to BF and it is to A&S asking advice for someone else ?
S u u u u u r e.......
lessismore
10-30-07, 04:19 PM
Beleave me man, If my bike got destroyed you all would here about. Why would I lie? thanks for the warm welcome.
zeytoun
10-30-07, 04:23 PM
Neither one was traveling in the wrong direction.Sure one was.
The straight sections have room for two cyclists in opposite directions to pass each other, right?
If both cyclists were on their respective rights sides, the collision wouldn't have happened. At least one had to be riding with part of their person or bike sticking over the halfway point.
Blue Order
10-30-07, 06:07 PM
Sure one was.
The straight sections have room for two cyclists in opposite directions to pass each other, right?
If both cyclists were on their respective rights sides, the collision wouldn't have happened. At least one had to be riding with part of their person or bike sticking over the halfway point.The oldest traffic law we have.
Allister
10-30-07, 07:26 PM
Were those paths added on as an afterthought or what? No design should ever pass the first review with pinch points like those posed by the pylons and the cable anchors. It would be unacceptable on a road, why is it acceptable on a path? Not that it can be readily changed now, but SHEESH!
tehdely
10-30-07, 07:32 PM
Damn, I was in that same group but I was a few miles away when it happened. I'm sure this other cyclist is all bark and no bite, but if not, I wish your brother the best luck dealing with him. Hopefully it'll go before Judge Judy ;)
Blue Order
10-30-07, 07:37 PM
Were those paths added on as an afterthought or what? No design should ever pass the first review with pinch points like those posed by the pylons and the cable anchors. It would be unacceptable on a road, why is it acceptable on a path? Not that it can be readily changed now, but SHEESH!The bridge was begun in 1934, and completed in 1936, so the side path was undoubtedly dedicated to bicycle-specific use as an afterthought.
The bridge was begun in 1934, and completed in 1936, so the side path was undoubtedly dedicated to bicycle-specific use as an afterthought, despite the last-minute intensive lobbying efforts of the suicide lobby.
Yeah, but even as a footpath only, pinch points like that would be unacceptable. I was asking if the paths themselves were added later after the bridge was complete. If they were all designed and built at the same time, then shame on the designers. SHAME! I say.
Blue Order
10-30-07, 07:48 PM
This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTGgsPzSIdo) was a far greater danger on the bridge when I was a kid...
bmclaughlin807
10-30-07, 07:51 PM
the cause is unclear. the riding area is very narrow and people ride very fast. I came apon the scene about 2 minutes after the accident so i don't know what happend. after riding on the bridge for many years i can guess this is what happend. The other guy was going slightly down hill so he may have been going faster and they both where riding close to the center. i think they came apon eachother faster than they anticipated and they had no place to go, there is no room for error on the bridge. I think if this was on a different strech of road the accident wouldn't have happend. I think they just had no place to go, so they veard and both hit opposite guardrails.
Sounds like they're each responsible for their own bikes.
Sounds a lot like the idiot roadie that came around a blind corner hugging the centerline at 20 mph+ on our local path... and then proceeds to cuss out my wife who is fully in her own lane and traveling at about 10 mph the other way.
If he'd bothered to stop I'd have given him an ass whuppin' he'd not forget anytime soon. ;)
Allister
10-30-07, 07:56 PM
Having noted that, I don't think it's a dangerous path at all.
Fair enough. In general, my view is that paths (or roads) aren't inherently dangerous, it's how they're used, or misused.
Riders just slow as they round the towers. There's plenty of room for two way traffic, if folks can control their bikes. My kids have managed just fine over the years. Apparently some adults still have trouble staying on their side though...
Apparently. The question remains whether it was the one going downhill, possibly too fast for the traffic conditions, or the one going uphill, possibly holding a less than true line due to a lack of speed, or a bit of both. It's entirely possible the participants won't even remember it clearly. If it was me, I'd chalk it up to experience, and move on.
Allister
10-30-07, 07:59 PM
This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTGgsPzSIdo) was a far greater danger on the bridge when I was a kid...
Proper vehicular lane positioning should protect you from that.
Blue Order
10-30-07, 08:07 PM
Proper vehicular lane positioning should protect you from that.:lol:
why2not
10-31-07, 08:36 AM
Welcome to the forums. There is likely to be some "personal agenda" sniping going on around your post, try to ignore that (I haven't read any replies yet).
I would say that the first thing you want to do is get a copy of the police report. See what it says & then make your plans from there.
Mr. Underbridge
11-01-07, 09:37 AM
^^^ illegal or not. If illegal, then it should not be, bikes are better off on the road. Separate but equal does not would with race, it does not work with traffic.
Yeah, you call the CA DOT and tell them bikes should be allowed on freeways. Make sure to fit the facts to your ideology.
You've never lived in California, have you? This is one of those situations where you simply don't know what you're talking about. TRUST ME - bikes would *not* be better off on the Golden Gate bridge than on the adjoining path. And the DOT would never consider it due to the ensuing traffic disaster. So forget it.