Albany, NY -

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?category=ALBANY&storyID=226986&BCCode=&newsdate=3/10/2004

This is a busy road but is technically dedicated as a "bike route" for the state, which from my observations just means the little bike signs appear, not that there are actually bike lanes available.

Albany, NY -

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?category=ALBANY&storyID=226986&BCCode=&newsdate=3/10/2004

This is a busy road but is technically dedicated as a "bike route" for the state, which from my observations just means the little bike signs appear, not that there are actually bike lanes available.

That's so sad! That is a definite reason why I always wear a helmet, which, not wearing one, I am sure is one reason why the person was killed.

They have "bike routes" here in Nashville and they are not actual bike lanes! I think that is stupid. Who really pays any attention to those??

They have "bike routes" here in Nashville and they are not actual bike lanes! I think that is stupid. Who really pays any attention to those??

California has a system of Class I bikeways, which are separated from motor traffic; Class II bike lanes, generally along the shoulders of major roads; and Class III bike routes, regular roads which are popular with cyclists or which provide essential connections between Class Is and/or Class IIs. I concur with your concern about "bike routes." The designation is SUPPOSED to alert motorists that bicyclists are likely to be present. It can also be useful to out-of-town cyclists looking for preferred routes.

If they were both travelling in the same direction, the fact that only the back end of the bike is mangled would suggest that the car ran into the bike, and the statement "it appears both Morgan and the 1994 Oldsmobile she collided with ....". It looks more like the Oldmobile collided with her.

That's what I'm thinking.

I would surmise that if the bike were travelling perpendicular to the vehicle's direction of travel (crossing paths) the car would have kicked the rear wheel around, possibly deforming it a little, but not running over and crushing it.

But, if the car were to overtake the bike, the tire would run up under the car and be crushed much like what is shown in the photo.

But, I'm just speculating.

IMO, whether or not the cyclist was wearing a helmet is besides the point, and is a 'blame the victim' smokescreen. The fact that the driver was not cited would appear to be criminal negligence on the part of the police...from the description in the text of the article and the damage to the bike shown in the picture, it would appear to be a rear-end accident, in which the driver of the overtaking vehicle would be at fault...

So far all we've heard of any substance from the report is "accident happened at an intersection" and "cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet".

In other words, basically nothing. Another media report which was a complete waste of whatever time it took to read it.

I lost my twin brother to a motorbike a year ago...seeing that site with the covers over the body just makes me want to cry. Death is so sad.

IMO, whether or not the cyclist was wearing a helmet is besides the point, and is a 'blame the victim' smokescreen. The fact that the driver was not cited would appear to be criminal negligence on the part of the police...from the description in the text of the article and the damage to the bike shown in the picture, it would appear to be a rear-end accident, in which the driver of the overtaking vehicle would be at fault...

I'd like to know if the driver was wearing a seat belt. That could possibly be a bigger factor in an accident.

Yes, we need far more detail. If the collision occurred on the approach into the intersection, the motorist might have been preparing to make a right turn, or the cyclist might have moved leftward across the motorist's path, to prepare for left turn. It sounds like a tragic case of inattention on at least one party's part; there is entirely too much of that going around!

Yes, we need far more detail. If the collision occurred on the approach into the intersection, the motorist might have been preparing to make a right turn, or the cyclist might have moved leftward across the motorist's path, to prepare for left turn. It sounds like a tragic case of inattention on at least one party's part; there is entirely too much of that going around!

Judging from the obit in today's paper, I believe the cyclist had Down's Syndrome. I don't know if that at all may have contributed to the accident. She did work full time and presumably traveled regularly on that road on her bicycle.

From my friend in the Albany - Schenectady area: "The street she was on is really bad for bicycling. Very busy with no bike lane."

From my friend in the Albany - Schenectady area: "The street she was on is really bad for bicycling. Very busy with no bike lane."

Extremely bad. This is an old thoroughfare, with frequent businesses on both sides, so there is a lot of traffic pulling out. It's two lanes ride and most people try to travel about 45 mph. My LBS is on this road - so I usually ride on the sidewalk the short distance from another intersection to the shop. I just can't fathom why they thought this was a good idea for a bike route, other than it is State Route 5 which goes from Albany to Buffalo (all the way across east-way for those of you not familiar). Instead of being a bike route, bikers should be cautioned before riding it.

Instead of being a bike route, it should instead be off-limits to bikes for their own good.

Don't go there.

If you want to do something to increase cycling safety on this route, advocate lower speed limits. If the conditions are as you say 45mph is far too fast for any traffic to travel on it.

Banning bikes is never a solution.

Instead of being a bike route, it should instead be off-limits to bikes for their own good.

You're kidding right? Do you advocate a similar law banning cars from every road that a driver was killed on at some point "for their own good"? Well, there would be plenty of car-free roads around here if that was the case, so maybe it isn't such a bad thing!

Just so you're aware of the situation, I commute daily on a 4-8 lane busy road with no shoulder (and yes, people do drive at 45mph and faster). I find it a much safer route than any of the other alternatives I've tried. Yes, there is a certain amount of risk, but this is the case with literally every other instant of my life (including sitting here typing this message). Whether this route is the best alternative for cyclists in that part of the world is open to debate, and perhaps there is a better one, but simply banning a cyclist who may at some point need to use this road for transportational purposes is beyond ridiculous.

Now, here's an idea - would you be willing to pay a bicycle tax to build roads or paths for bicycles only? Should we make drivers pay a bicycle tax in order for bicycles to be out of their way and on their own paths?

Oh dear.

Cyclists already pay taxes that pay for roads that everybody is entitled to use (but only to use safely, which it seems, that the motorists are not doing on this road).

Don't tell me that only motorists can use my tax dollars to drive on roads I pay for and then expect me to pay again for more roads we don't need.

Now, here's an idea - would you be willing to pay a bicycle tax to build roads or paths for bicycles only? Should we make drivers pay a bicycle tax in order for bicycles to be out of their way and on their own paths?


The idea of a tax/registration fee for cyclists is not new. It's been looked into before by several state governments, both in Australia and the US. The idea was abandoned because it simply was not economically viable -- i.e. any revenue generated would be more than swallowed up by administration costs and the like, and the system would run at a loss.

As far as exclusive bike paths go, forget it. I've seen attempts at building them around here, and I invariably ignore them and use the road instead. The fact is that in virtually any urban area, it is impossible to build a second, equal transport network simply due to space issues. To do so around here would require the demolition of multi-million dollar apartments, something that just isn't going to happen.

Bicyclists are already paying for motorists' use of local roads in many different ways, primarily through payment of a variety of state and local taxes that end up in local government's general funds and are subsequently used to build, maintain and police roads. These funds could equally be used to build separated bike paths, without imposing a new fee on bicyclists.

Other ways bicyclists subsidize motorists is through taxes they pay to the federal government that are used to subsidize gas prices, through tax breaks and incentives to oil companies for exploration and development of oil reserves; oil depletion allowances; oil company exemptions from environmental laws; and overseas military adventures and covert operations that secure and protect supplies of cheap foreign oil.

Additional hidden costs of driving that motorists don't directly pay, but all citizens contribute to whether they drive or not include costs of automobile-related pollution; lost development costs due to the large amount of land reserved for storage of cars (i.e. parking); health and hospitalization costs related to care of motor vehicle accident victims and other health costs asssociated with motor vehicle caused air pollution-related diseases; and this list could go on.

The point is, bicyclists already subsidize motorists, and should not have to pay additional fees or taxes for construction of mode-specific separated paths. The converse is actually true: every person cycling improves air quality, reduces traffic congestion, and frees up a parking space for someone who is still driving; therefore, it could be argued that the motoring public benefits the most from, and therefore should be paying for, the construction of such paths.

A good reference on local funding issues is:
http://www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf

A few reports and references on safety issues:
http://www.vtpi.org/puchertq.pdf
http://www.vtpi.org/AJPHpucher.pdf
http://www.rightofway.org/research/cyclists.pdf

Report on external (subsidized) costs of driving:
http://www.redefiningprogress.org/publications/beyond_gas_taxes.pdf

...The point is, bicyclists already subsidize motorists, and should not have to pay additional fees or taxes for construction of mode-specific separated paths...

True but almost insignificant. The vast majority of cyclists are also motorists; and I speculate the vast majority of highway miles that cyclo-motorists accumulate is in their automobiles, not on their bikes. This may not be true in large cities (say, NY etc) but humungous subsidies for mass transit are already provided in this latter case. But it is most certainly true in rural areas and suburban settings.

Mode specific separated paths are ridiculous except in the most unusual circumstances and areas of critical need. Far more effective would be an ongoing commitment to adding, broadening, and improving road shoulders. To me that is the 'bicycle lifeline' that my gasoline taxes and general revenues pay for.

roughstuff