Bus kills cyclist in Beaverton, Oregon (http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2008/02/cyclist_killed_by_trimet_bus_i.html)
TriMet bus hits, kills Beaverton cyclist
Posted by The Oregonian February 11, 2008 17:27PM
A bicyclist was killed in a crash involving a TriMet bus this afternoon in Beaverton, authorities said tonight.
The fatal collision happened about 4:45 p.m. on Farmington Road, as the westbound bus was making a stop just west of Murray Blvd, police and TriMet officials said. While police investigate, about four blocks of westbound Farmington Road from 142nd Avenue remain closed.
Few details have emerged from the scene. Sgt. Paul Wandell, a Beaverton Police spokesman, said it is unclear whether the bus hit the cyclist, who was described as a "young adult male."
There is a bike lane on Farmington Road, but it remains unclear if the cyclist was using the lane at the time of the collision, Wandell said.
The cyclist, who was wearing a helmet, died at the scene, he said.
The bus driver was 53-year-old woman who lives in Hillsboro and has 26 years of experience with TriMet, the transit agency said.
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
I don't know the details in this case, but I do know that bikelanes, bus stops, and clueless/impatient bus drivers do not mix.
Good thing he was wearing a helmet though, or he might be even deader.
vincentpaul
That's a nasty intersection. I rode through it twice daily for about 4 months last fall (my office has since moved). Both Farmington Road and and Murray have bike lanes on both sides for miles on both sides of the road....except just before that intersection where on one side of Murray the bike lane simply disappears and the sidewalk has allegedly been turned into a "multiuser path." A cyclist coming off the path turning right into the bike lane on Farmington is entering a nasty situation. Two major roads with heavy traffic moving at 40 mph. Bus stops right at the intersections. Stupid. I hated it.
ckeizer77
I don't know what it's like in Oregon, I've only read about bike/motorist relations there. I know that in Los Angeles there isn't the best relationship between transit workers and cyclists. Despite always being late and having a general lackadaisical attitude, transit workers in L.A. sure do feel it necessary to bully cyclists trying to make their way from one bike lane to another.
randya
It was only a matter of time. TriMet bus drivers really aren't too fond of cyclists.
vincentpaul
The Oregonian has a little more information up now (see below). This may be an instance of bike lanes breeding a false security in a young rider. For some odd reason they seem to think that because its called a bike lane its for bikes, and not for vehicular traffic. Which may have been a fatal error in this instance.
Teen cyclist killed in TriMet bus collision in Beaverton
Posted by The Oregonian February 11, 2008 17:27PM
Categories: Top Stories, Traffic Alerts, Washington County
The bicyclist who was killed in a crash involving a TriMet bus this afternoon in Beaverton was a local high school student, but were not ready to release his name.
The boy's family "needs to take the night to make some phone calls," said Sgt. Paul Wandell, a Beaverton Police spokesman. "We will have more information in the morning."
The fatal collision happened about 4:45 p.m. on Southwest Farmington Road, as the westbound bus was making a stop just west of Murray Boulevard, police and TriMet officials said.
Although police have reopened four blocks of westbound Farmington Road and parts of Murray Boulevard that were closed for the investigation, officials were not ready to release details of the crash until a few more people have been interviewed, Wandell said.
Still, Wandell said investigators "have a pretty good idea" what happened, adding that the cyclist may have attempted to turn right from Murray Boulevard as the bus pulled into its stop on Farmington Road.
There is a bike lane on Farmington Road, but it remains unclear if the cyclist was at the time of the collision, Wandell said.
The cyclist, who was wearing a helmet, died at the scene, he said.
The bus driver was 53-year-old woman who lives in Hillsboro and has 26 years of experience with TriMet, the transit agency said.
bmclaughlin807
The Oregonian has a little more information up now (see below). This may be an instance of bike lanes breeding a false security in a young rider. For some odd reason they seem to think that because its called a bike lane its for bikes, and not for vehicular traffic. Which may have been a fatal error in this instance.
Oregon law is pretty clear about bikes ALWAYS having the right of way in a bike lane... it's enforcement that's lacking. :(
Assuming the bus didn't run the red light (BIG assumption, I know!) it would appear that the kid made a right turn on red into the path of the bus... Guess we'll have to stay tuned for more details.
randya
I know it's a fine point, but if he was on the MUP he wouldn't be required to obey the traffic signal per se. And those TriMet drivers run red lights and speed all the time, they are worse than the motorists, got to keep on their schedule 'cause that's how their performance is rated.
John E
I know it's a fine point, but if he was on the MUP he wouldn't be required to obey the traffic signal per se. ... ... even as he entered a street???
keisatsu
This is pretty sad, I feel for the family.
I just started cycling regularily in Portland Or, and just yesterday I was almost hit by a bus as it was pulling out of it's stop (it still had it's right turn blinker on!). Luckily there was minimal traffic in the lane next to me so I could swerve to dodge the bus, but it makes you wake up a little.
On a side note, that same ride my shoulder was ever so slightly clipped by a tow truck mirror, luckily not hard enough to break anything, but enough to scrape up my shoulder.
John E
...
I just started cycling regularily in Portland Or, and just yesterday I was almost hit by a bus as it was pulling out of it's stop (it still had it's right turn blinker on!). Luckily there was minimal traffic in the lane next to me so I could swerve to dodge the bus, but it makes you wake up a little.
On a side note, that same ride my shoulder was ever so slightly clipped by a tow truck mirror, luckily not hard enough to break anything, but enough to scrape up my shoulder.
You may need to position yourself farther from the curb. I am not as hard-core VC as many familiar members of this forum, but I definitely appreciate their point regarding making oneself visible and leaving oneself some maneuvering room.
gosmsgo
sidewalk bikeways are never, ever good.
There is a big difference between an MUP which is like a trail with no road crossings and a big sidewalk designed for bikes.
Just having one in this story muddies the hell out of the situation.
HumbleGrendel
Rest in Peace kid.
I really wish that reporters could understand that they aren't providing relevant information by checking the helmet yes/no box. It just sounds inane when the reporter says "The cyclist, who was wearing a helmet, died at the scene, he said." How about a follow-up report with information on how relevant a helmet is when colliding with a bus.
If they have to report the cold facts, how about something like, "The cyclist, who was wearing reflective clothing and equipped with flashing LED lights, died at the scene." Of course, this would have the problem of setting precedence and then reporters would have to provide relevant information in all of their stories.
vincentpaul
I've done a quick edit of a google map to give you a better idea of what the intersection looks like. It seems to me that there was one of two possibilities here. 1) the kid hopped into the bike lane directly in front of the bus, giving the driver no room to evade the collision, or 2) the driver failed to yield to the kid who had lawfully taken the bike lane. The problem with bike lanes is that they really do breed a false sense of confidence, strongest in novice cyclists, that the bike lane is a protected space. As this case demonstrated, the bike lane is clearly not a vehicle free zone. Here's the intersection (the accident occurred at approximately the Highway 10 symbol):
http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=64908&stc=1&d=1202834823
randya
... even as he entered a street???
with the exception of busses, no other vehicle would ever have a reason to cross the bike lane at that location, so yes.
poor design is a major contributing factor here.
vincentpaul
+1 on the poor design. There's no reason to have a bus stop immediately adjacent to the corner of a major intersection with a bike lane that begins at the same intersection. This location was just begging for trouble. There was always traffic nosed out in the right lane to turn right, obstructing views of traffic on Farmington when turning from the MUP. The corner also attracts heavy pedestrian traffic because of the multiple bus stops. If the stop was moved 100' further down the road, this would have been much less likely to happen.
ChipSeal
Excuse me for being a nitpicker on this, but that is NOT a MUP, it is a classic "side-path". Injury and death are closely associated with side-paths.
vincentpaul
Excuse me for being a nitpicker on this, but that is NOT a MUP, it is a classic "side-path". Injury and death are closely associated with side-paths.
Right, I guess I was confused by the sign that says "multi-use path." Maybe you could drop Metro a note and set them straight on this? I suppose that could call it a "really wide sidewalk made of asphault and intended and signed for use by both pedestrians and cyclists."
Brian Ratliff
I've ridden this road daily for a time back a few years ago. What happens is that there is a bike lane down Murray Blvd along it's entire length except right next to the Sisters of St. Mary campus that lies in-between Farmington and TV Highway. At that spot, cyclists traveling south on Murray are directed onto a sidepath - the only sidepath I know of in Beaverton. It probably has something to do with land ownership rules with the campus. The sidepath is only on the west side of Murray Blvd, and it dumps you on the corner where the accident happened.
I think I tried that sidepath once or twice. It was kinda scary getting back onto the road once it ended to continue on Murray. I don't know if this path had anything to do with the accident though. If the cyclist was on the path, he could have been either turning right onto Farmington, perhaps, or crossing Farmington to stay on Murray, possibly against the light. Alternatively, he might have been on Farmington headed west and the bus cut into him. I almost had this happen once by a Trimet bus driver. Sometimes, I think they get target fixation when stopping for people at little used bus stops. Especially if they are impatient. There is no bike lane or WOL on Farmington on the east side of Murray, so it is quite possible that the bus was getting delayed by the cyclist, and as the cyclist crossed Murray and faded into the bike lane on the opposite side, the bus driver started passing, cutting into the curb to pick up passengers before the pass was completed. This is basically what happened to me in the incident I mentioned earlier.
Here's the google map:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=murray+and+farmington+beaverton+OR&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=45.957536,95.800781&ie=UTF8&ll=45.48583,-122.82612&spn=0.001249,0.002924&t=h&z=19&om=0
Blue Order
Memorial planned for Austin Miller (http://bikeportland.org/2008/02/12/tonight-memorial-planned-for-austin-miller/)
I've ridden this road daily for a time back a few years ago. What happens is that there is a bike lane down Murray Blvd along it's entire length except right next to the Sisters of St. Mary campus that lies in-between Farmington and TV Highway. At that spot, cyclists traveling south on Murray are directed onto a sidepath - the only sidepath I know of in Beaverton. It probably has something to do with land ownership rules with the campus. The sidepath is only on the west side of Murray Blvd, and it dumps you on the corner where the accident happened.
I think I tried that sidepath once or twice. It was kinda scary getting back onto the road once it ended to continue on Murray. I don't know if this path had anything to do with the accident though. If the cyclist was on the path, he could have been either turning right onto Farmington, perhaps, or crossing Farmington to stay on Murray, possibly against the light. Alternatively, he might have been on Farmington headed west and the bus cut into him. I almost had this happen once by a Trimet bus driver. Sometimes, I think they get target fixation when stopping for people at little used bus stops. Especially if they are impatient. There is no bike lane or WOL on Farmington on the east side of Murray, so it is quite possible that the bus was getting delayed by the cyclist, and as the cyclist crossed Murray and faded into the bike lane on the opposite side, the bus driver started passing, cutting into the curb to pick up passengers before the pass was completed. This is basically what happened to me in the incident I mentioned earlier.
Here's the google map:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=murray+and+farmington+beaverton+OR&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=45.957536,95.800781&ie=UTF8&ll=45.48583,-122.82612&spn=0.001249,0.002924&t=h&z=19&om=0
BikePortland reports that both wheels of the bus (I assume that means front and back) ran over the cyclist's head, and that while passengers on the bus reported seeing the cyclist prior to the crash, the bus driver did not.
Dahon.Steve
The sidepath is only on the west side of Murray Blvd, and it dumps you on the corner where the accident happened.
[/URL]
That's pretty much what happened. The cyclist was on the sidepath and it dumped him into a bus stop. How tragic.
Blue Order
That's pretty much what happened. The cyclist was on the sidepath and it dumped him into a bus stop. How tragic.There's probably an engineer's report on this bus stop that explains away any possibility of that happening.
randya
There's probably an engineer's report on this bus stop that explains away any possibility of that happening.
I doubt there is anything of the sort, I expect the bike facilities are textbook AASHTO or MUTCD and no one gave a single thought as to their actual safety at all
Blue Order
I doubt there is anything of the sort, I expect the bike facilities are textbook AASHTO or MUTCD and no one gave a single thought as to their actual safety at allI'm just used to seeing Environmental Impact Reports (California) that easily explain away any problems that a project might cause. And even here in Portland, on the downtown transit mall, they've pooh-poohed away any concerns that weaving buses, light rail, and cars together on the same street will lead to collisions.
randya
yeah, but this is Beaverton / WashCo. I think the city's response will be to use this tragedy to ban bikes from these arterials or something equally ridiculous
JusticeZero
If the stop was moved 100' further down the road, this would have been much less likely to happen.
Maybe, but that would cause inordinate and unreasonable delays for the people transfering at the bus stop, which I suspect outnumber the bikers.
Brian Ratliff
yeah, but this is Beaverton / WashCo. I think the city's response will be to use this tragedy to ban bikes from these arterials or something equally ridiculous
I don't think this will happen. In fact, I doubt it will be talked about past a week. We don't really have much politics going on here; I'd be surprised if anything even came up. We're just a bunch of suburbanites who like to keep to ourselves. The city should really get rid of that sidepath, but I suspect that you'd have to talk to the Church campus first. My guess is that they own the land up to the curb and have used some political maneuvering to keep the street from being widened and continuing the bike lane.
Besides, it is impossible (literally) to move around the city if there are any bans on any roads. We don't have a grid like Portland does. There are no alternatives to traveling on Farmington or Murray. Murray is one of only three or four streets which run north/south along the entire length. Farmington is one of only 4 or 5 streets running east/west along the length of the city. Most of Beaverton is located along Farmington.
gosmsgo
Here in my town the city folks are still building sidepaths.
No one knows why and no one will acknowledge why they are a good idea.
It makes me so mad I just want to poke my own eyes out.
AlmostTrick
Not far from where I live, Schaumburg Illinois not only has side paths all over the place, but also has a mandatory side path law requiring cyclists to use them when available. To top it off, the LAB even honors the village as a bicycle friendly community!
§ 73.12 RIDING BICYCLES ON STREETS AND BICYCLE PATHS.
(A) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right hand side of the roadways as practicable exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction, at all times giving the right of way to other moving vehicles.
(B) Bicycles shall not be operated upon any street or other location where the operation of bicycles has been prohibited and signs have been erected indicating such prohibition.
(C) Persons riding bicycles upon roadway shall not ride other than single file except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.
(D) Whenever a usable path for bicycles has been provided adjacent to a roadway, bicycle riders shall use such path and not use the roadway.
(E) Persons riding on bicycle paths shall ride right of the center of the path in the direction they are proceeding.
(Ord. 1849, passed 5-13-1980)
vincentpaul
I don't think this will happen. In fact, I doubt it will be talked about past a week. We don't really have much politics going on here; I'd be surprised if anything even came up. We're just a bunch of suburbanites who like to keep to ourselves. The city should really get rid of that sidepath, but I suspect that you'd have to talk to the Church campus first. My guess is that they own the land up to the curb and have used some political maneuvering to keep the street from being widened and continuing the bike lane.
Besides, it is impossible (literally) to move around the city if there are any bans on any roads. We don't have a grid like Portland does. There are no alternatives to traveling on Farmington or Murray. Murray is one of only three or four streets which run north/south along the entire length. Farmington is one of only 4 or 5 streets running east/west along the length of the city. Most of Beaverton is located along Farmington.
I agree. Travel corridors are at a premium in the Beaverton area. Geography is the problem. The Tualatin Hills create a series of steep, unstable ridges that naturally funnel traffic and prevent continuous side streets. Murray is actually a pretty comfortable bike route across the majority of its 10-mile length. This intersection and the intersection at the other end of the block are nightmares. Lots of construction and commercial traffic moving fast. The problem does indeed seem to be the lack of access to the Sisters' property at St. Mary of the Valley. Metro says that buying access from them would be "prohibitively expensive." I doubt the good sisters are going to be providing charity to the City of Beaverton anytime soon.
Blue Order
If Beaverton and Trimet are held liable for tens of millions in damages, they'll find a way to make the intersections and bus stops safer...
randya
TriMet's got a well-paid fleet of scumbag attorneys that will attempt to prevent that...
:mad:
gosmsgo
Yeah I hope the family sues, sues and sues some more until no one even considers sidepaths.
AASHTO lists them as the #1 way to get sued as a city.
closetbiker
...I really wish that reporters could understand that they aren't providing relevant information by checking the helmet yes/no box...
I agree but the upside of reporters mentioning this is that it becomes better known that just because one is wearing a helmet (or is in a bike lane) a life is still in danger of being lost. Too many people think these 2 ingredients are the prime points in saving the lives of cyclists when of course they are not. It's a little more complicated than that. Too often if an areas usage rate is low, there is an inference that it's the lack of a helmet that's to blame for deaths, but in areas with high usage rates, it's a little more clear that helmets are no match for motor vehicles.
What I see a fair bit of is both motorists and cyclists not looking around for potential conflicts. It might be the case that not only the bus driver was not even aware of the presence of the kid, but the kid may not have even been aware that he could possibly ride in the path of an oncoming bus.
vincentpaul
What I see a fair bit of is both motorists and cyclists not looking around for potential conflicts. It might be the case that not only the bus driver was not even aware of the presence of the kid, but the kid may not have even been aware that he could possibly ride in the path of an oncoming bus.
+1 The facts reported so far by the media don't lead me to a conclusion that either party (bus driver or the kid) caused the accident. It is rare in the extreme that an accident is an "accident." There is almost always somebody at fault for the COLLISION. This appears to have been a collision. One of the parties was at fault. One of the two failed to act in the manner that would have prevented it. The bus driver may have been negligent in the manner in which she approached the intersection and/or stop, the cyclist may have been negligent in the manner he made his turn into the roadway. It's really not clear which happened aside from the fact of the collision itself. And, we may never have a good idea about which is more probable. Eyewitnesses accounts are notoriously unreliable, and in cyclist / motor vehicle collisions there is often very little forensic evidence from which to infer the cause of the crash. My concerns about this intersection are in the main the failure to accomodate predictable acts of negligence. But an improper design won't excuse negligence.
Blue Order
It is rare in the extreme that an accident is an "accident." There is almost always somebody at fault for the COLLISION. If a collision is unintentional, it's an accident-- it wasn't the result of an intentional act. Fault has nothing to do with it. An act can be unintentional and still have somebody legally at fault-- which is usually the case, because unintentional acts are still usually negligent acts.
closetbiker
so many times I see a cyclist just riding straight ahead not looking over the shoulder or to the side.
When I used to drive cab, I used to look a the other drivers heads to see if they were moving them about to get a clue as to how tuned in they were to their surroundings.
vincentpaul
If a collision is unintentional, it's an accident-- it wasn't the result of an intentional act. Fault has nothing to do with it. An act can be unintentional and still have somebody legally at fault-- which is usually the case, because unintentional acts are still usually negligent acts.
I disagree with you about the concept of a vehicular "accident," as would most state motor vehicle regulatory bodies. We simply need to remove the concept that collisions occur by accident from our way of thinking. Its really a way of trying to absolve all parties of fault, when in fact collisions invariably occur because of someone's fault. "Accident" is simply an inappropriate term to use in most collisions. It's not by accident that someone neglects their duties as a driver or cyclist. If drivers weren't so neglectful, there would be a hell of a lot less cyclists and motorists killed each year. While some people would prefer to ignore their fault, it is nevertheless present in almost every collision. In almost every instance there was somebody who failed to perform a duty which, if it had been performed, would have prevented the accident. It's almost impossible to have an "accident" in which one of the parties was not at fault. My work happens to have caused me to review hundreds of collisions over an approximate five year period of time in order to determine whether a party was at fault. In that period of time there was exactly one case in which I could not point to a party at fault in the collision - and frankly, that was a close call. In every instance there was a person who was responsible for the collision having occurred. The most common fault being the failure of drivers to adjust their driving to the conditions present. For instance, its not reasonable to drive at the speed limit during a driving rain, fog, snow, freezing wet weather that causes black ice, etc. Indeed, there are times when its simply not reasonable to operate a vehicle. It's funny how many people absolve themselves from responsibility by saying "it just happened." It usually just happens when they neglected their responsibilities due to inattention, fatigue, prescription drugs, etc. Neglect may be a common occurence, but it is neglect nonetheless.
Blue Order
I disagree with you about the concept of a vehicular "accident," as would most state motor vehicle regulatory bodies.You and they can disagree all you want, that's still the law.
We simply need to remove the concept that collisions occur by accident from our way of thinking. Its really a way of trying to absolve all parties of fault-No, that is not the law at all. Look, I can understand that people who don't know the law would get worked up into a lather about "fault," but really, if you want to fashion legal arguments-- and that's what you're doing-- you should learn something about the law first.
when in fact collisions invariably occur because of someone's fault.Right. And unless it's an intentional act, it's what we call an "accident"-- it wasn't intended. That's not the same thing as saying nobody is at fault.
"Accident" is simply an inappropriate term to use in most collisions. It's not by accident that someone neglects their duties as a driver or cyclist.Really? Are you saying it's intentional?
If drivers weren't so neglectful, there would be a hell of a lot less cyclists and motorists killed each year. While some people would prefer to ignore their fault, it is nevertheless present in almost every collision. In almost every instance there was somebody who failed to perform a duty which, if it had been performed, would have prevented the accident. It's almost impossible to have an "accident" in which one of the parties was not at fault.You're still confusing negligence and intentional acts. A negligent act-- what you're describing-- by nature has unintended consequences. The injury itself is "accidental." The fault for the accidental injury belongs to the negligent party.
My work happens to have caused me to review hundreds of collisions over an approximate five year period of time in order to determine whether a party was at fault. In that period of time there was exactly one case in which I could not point to a party at fault in the collision - and frankly, that was a close call. In every instance there was a person who was responsible for the collision having occurred.Still doesn't make it intentional.
The most common fault being the failure of drivers to adjust their driving to the conditions present. For instance, its not reasonable to drive at the speed limit during a driving rain, fog, snow, freezing wet weather that causes black ice, etc. Indeed, there are times when its simply not reasonable to operate a vehicle. It's funny how many people absolve themselves from responsibility by saying "it just happened." It usually just happens when they neglected their responsibilities due to inattention, fatigue, prescription drugs, etc. Neglect may be a common occurence, but it is neglect nonetheless.And still unintentional-- that is, accidental.
ChipSeal
TriMet's got a well-paid fleet of scumbag attorneys that will attempt to prevent that...
Redundant! :p
gosmsgo
One thing that could have prevented this are guards over the sides of the tires.
They might occasionally scrap the ground and throw up some sparks but its highly unlikely a bus could run over someone.
donnamb
More local discussion on the subject (http://bikeportland.org/2008/02/13/bikes-on-sidewalks-could-washington-county-be-held-liable-in-tragedy/). Incidentally, Hal Ballard, LCI, is Mr. High Speed Suburban Arterial Vehicular Cycling Guy of that area...
vincentpaul
You and they can disagree all you want, that's still the law.
No, that is not the law at all. Look, I can understand that people who don't know the law would get worked up into a lather about "fault," but really, if you want to fashion legal arguments-- and that's what you're doing-- you should learn something about the law first.
I'm an administrative law judge with 20 years of legal background, 5 in this specific area of law.
Bikepacker67
Good!
Someone's gonna call B.O. on this accident misnomer, of which he's so adamant.
Blue Order
I'm an administrative law judge with 20 years of legal background, 5 in this specific area of law.Good, then perhaps you can offer a legal explanation of why an unintended act is not an accidental act.
Here's a fact pattern for you:
I'm walking down the sidewalk, looking at the sights, not really watching where I'm going, when I bump into you, knocking the coffee cup from your hand, onto my previously clean pants, and also onto your very expensive suit. I apologise, saying, I'm sorry, that was so clumsy of me. Later, when a colleague asks me what happened to my pants, I say that I accidentally bumped into somebody on the street, knocking a cup of coffee from his hands.
Question: An unintended act-- i.e., negligence? Or an intentional act-- i.e., battery? If negligence, can I be held liable for my negligence, even though I didn't intend to bump into you? Or does fault only apply to intentional acts?
And finally, if it is an unintended act, please offer a legal explanation of the difference between unintended acts and accidental acts.
I'm all ears...
Blue Order
Good!
Someone's gonna call B.O. on this accident misnomer, of which he's so adamant.Perhaps I'm so adamant about that point because an argument that claims that fault can't be assigned if an injury is accidental-- i.e., the result of an unintended but negligent act-- is nonsense.
WaltPoutine
+1 on the poor design. There's no reason to have a bus stop immediately adjacent to the corner of a major intersection
No reason? How about public transit users needing a bus stop in a convenient location?
with a bike lane that begins at the same intersection.
See, there's your trouble and your "poor design": it's a bike lane.
vincentpaul
Our disagreement is really one of nomenclature. I'm arguing against the use of the word accident in the sense of "something that occurs unexpectedly" or "by fortune or chance;" you, on the other hand, are using the word in the sense of "unintentional." My focus is on the reasonability and prudence of driver behavior; your focus is their state of mind. To the extent that the word confuses the two, I believe it's better that we avoid its use. This is a particular concern to me because we are increasingly seeing motorists who exhibit a diminished sense of personal responsibility, while we are simultaneously seeing an increase in the consequences of driver behavior (because of increased vehicle size and power). Hence, my objection to calling most collisions accidents.
And how many angels _do_ you think you and I could fit on the head of a pin here in A&S? : )
vincentpaul
No reason? How about public transit users needing a bus stop in a convenient location?
See, there's your trouble and your "poor design": it's a bike lane.
I would weigh the likely death or harm to other users of the public way a bit more heavily than the inconvenience of walking a few feet (50'? 100'?) further. Your mileage may vary. It's a cost/benefit analysis. There are indeed many people who would find that their inconvenience is worth considerably more than the few lives that would likely be saved.