Advocacy & Safety - Mom & two sons hit in Hawaii

http://kgmb9.com/main/content/view/14535/40/

"Woman In Critical Condition; North Shore Accident
A woman is fighting for her life and her two children also hospitalized after being hit by a car on the North Shore.

It happened on Kamehameha highway near Ke Waena beach just after 8 o'clock this morning. Police say the woman was on a bicycle pulling her two young sons in a carriage when a car veered off the road and hit them head on. Police say speed, alcohol, and drugs do not appear to be factors in the crash."

Few details, but it does appear the Mom was riding the wrong direction, but was still well off the roadway.

It will be interesting if it turns out the motorist was texting on a cell phone, as the mayor just vetoed a bill outlawing texting and driving.

I do not care enough to follow this story but I bet that the comment section of the newspaper will be FULL of people criticizing her for transporting her kids outside of a car. Most people are too stupid to know that auto crashes are the #1 cause of death in children over the age of 3.

There is a real good chance that this was dog the bounty hunter who hit this family. He has already killed one little girl while driving, his own, and might be after some more.

Most people are too stupid to know that auto crashes are the #1 cause of death in children over the age of 3.So, suppose they're not `too stupid' to know this. What should they do with this knowledge?

Stay home?
Walk everywhere?
Take the kids in a trailer on their bike?

I imagine that your answer is #2 or #3, but I'm not aware of any study that suggests that by doing so the number of deaths would decrease. Ultimately, kids over 3 don't usually die of diseases -- they die from accidents, and transportation accidents are the most common kind of fatal accident. (Note that kids who have drivers licenses (presumably 16-18 or so) are the worst drivers of all. Though I don't know if they'd be better cyclists than drivers ...)

But wow, looking at the article ... her bike was messed up! Looks like the driver missed the trailer, however -- good thing too.

It will be interesting if it turns out the motorist was texting on a cell phone, as the mayor just vetoed a bill outlawing texting and driving.


I do not care enough to follow this story but I bet that the comment section of the newspaper will be FULL of people criticizing her for transporting her kids outside of a car. Most people are too stupid to know that auto crashes are the #1 cause of death in children over the age of 3.

There is a real good chance that this was dog the bounty hunter who hit this family. He has already killed one little girl while driving, his own, and might be after some more.

Can either of you two clairvoyants check your crystal balls and predict tomorrow's winning lottery number? It would be more productive than your ghoulish speculations.

^^
My statement made no prediction of cause and as such did not require any such clairvoyants. Nowadays, texting is one of the probable causes for someone just driving off the road for no apparent reason. Honolulu just went through getting a bill passed to ban texting while driving with a 7 to 1 vote by the city council. The mayor vetoed the bill, on the claim that it is too hard to enforce (angered many who want to stop this extremely unsafe practice). With the original 7-1 vote, the council could override the veto, but 2 councilman are hoping for political gain by riding the mayor's coat tails and flipped their vote. Thus the veto override failed solely for selfish individual political reasons. The veto story made ALL the news cast and papers. So yes, it will be very interesting to watch the fallout if the driver was texting, but not so if the driver was merely eating a Big Mac.

Not surprising ILTB fails to see the point in his rush to hammer an injured cyclist report.

^^
My statement made no prediction of cause and as such did not require any such clairvoyants. Nowadays, texting is one of the probable causes for someone just driving off the road for no apparent reason. Honolulu just went through getting a bill passed to ban texting while driving with a 7 to 1 vote by the city council. The mayor vetoed the bill, on the claim that it is too hard to enforce (angered many who want to stop this extremely unsafe practice). With the original 7-1 vote, the council could override the veto, but 2 councilman are hoping for political gain by riding the mayor's coat tails and flipped their vote. Thus the veto override failed solely for selfish individual political reasons. The veto story made ALL the news cast and papers. So yes, it will be very interesting to watch the fallout if the driver was texting, but not so if the driver was merely eating a Big Mac.

Not surprising ILTB fails to see the point in his rush to hammer an injured cyclist report.

Do the laws/ordinances in Honolulu passed by the council and mayor cover the North Shore? Does it extend that far to the other side of the island? I am not trying to be sarcastic or pick a fight or argument over this but you did say the incident occured on the North Shore. Honolulu is on the south end of the lsland. What powers do the mayor/council and laws/ordinances have so far away from Honolulu? I had thought that the North Shore would have it's own laws and ordinances dictated by it's council and mayor.

So, suppose they're not `too stupid' to know this. What should they do with this knowledge?

Stay home?
Walk everywhere?
Take the kids in a trailer on their bike?

I imagine that your answer is #2 or #3, but I'm not aware of any study that suggests that by doing so the number of deaths would decrease. Ultimately, kids over 3 don't usually die of diseases -- they die from accidents, and transportation accidents are the most common kind of fatal accident. (Note that kids who have drivers licenses (presumably 16-18 or so) are the worst drivers of all. Though I don't know if they'd be better cyclists than drivers ...)

But wow, looking at the article ... her bike was messed up! Looks like the driver missed the trailer, however -- good thing too.

Not "transportation accidents" Automobile accidents.

If the roles were reversed and 99% of trips made within cities were done so by bike/ped's and 1% by cars the roads would be very safe indeed. 42,000 americans would not die per year in auto crashes.....300,000 since 9-11-01

You know, that day when 1/100th that many people died and we fought two wars over it?

Here are the newspaper articles.

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200990228040

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009903010352

http://www.starbulletin.com/news/breaking/40488313.html

The last article seems to have gotten the cyclist direction of travel wrong.

sorry if the links were not working earlier

Do the laws/ordinances in Honolulu passed by the council and mayor cover the North Shore? Does it extend that far to the other side of the island? I am not trying to be sarcastic or pick a fight or argument over this but you did say the incident occured on the North Shore. Honolulu is on the south end of the lsland. What powers do the mayor/council and laws/ordinances have so far away from Honolulu? I had thought that the North Shore would have it's own laws and ordinances dictated by it's council and mayor.Good question. The Local government is actually the "City and County of Honolulu". It does cover both the city and the entire island of Oahu. There have been some attempts in the past to change the name to the "County of Oahu", but all were dropped due to the cost of changing all the signs, etc.

Good question. The Local government is actually the "City and County of Honolulu". It does cover both the city and the entire island of Oahu. There have been some attempts in the past to change the name to the "County of Oahu", but all were dropped due to the cost of changing all the signs, etc.

So since the the laws and ordinances that apply in Honolulu apply all across the island they also apply in Pearl City? Are there representatives from the other areas of the island on the council? Like the North Shore, Pearl City, etc.? This kind of sounds like one mayor/council is both the city council for Honolulu and a Board of Supervisors for the rest of the island. Is this a good assesment of how the government is set up?

Good question. The Local government is actually the "City and County of Honolulu". It does cover both the city and the entire island of Oahu. There have been some attempts in the past to change the name to the "County of Oahu", but all were dropped due to the cost of changing all the signs, etc.

It would appear by the following document that Honolulu ordinances encompass the North Shore.

http://www.honolulu.gov/refs/roh/nshore/24ns_ch4.htm

If the reports can be believed, the cyclist was riding against traffic on a cycle track that had just merged onto the road as a bike lane; "They also said the woman was hit when she was on the small portion of bike path that was really on the highway."

The newspaper story indicates that this is where it happened.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=pukea+road,+HIpukea+road,+HI&sll=21.660028,-158.052763&sspn=0.009473,0.012381&ie=UTF8&ll=21.661227,-158.054359&spn=0.001184,0.001548&t=h&z=19

If so, it was not near any intersections for that side of the road.

Representatives are from various parts of the island and the whole island is sort of treated like one city. Sort of like a large city, say Chicago, that has several districts within the city.

If the reports can be believed, the cyclist was riding against traffic on a cycle track that had just merged onto the road as a bike lane; "They also said the woman was hit when she was on the small portion of bike path that was really on the highway."

The newspaper story indicates that this is where it happened.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=pukea+road,+HIpukea+road,+HI&sll=21.660028,-158.052763&sspn=0.009473,0.012381&ie=UTF8&ll=21.661227,-158.054359&spn=0.001184,0.001548&t=h&z=19

If so, it was not near any intersections for that side of the road.The reports did a poor job of describing the area. The bike path is between Ke Waena Rd and Kamehameha Hwy. The bike path is narrow, curves a great deal and is physically separated from both the road and highway (as in recreational and not transportational path)the bike path ends withKe Waena Rd. Google maps also draws Ke Nui Rd too far to the southwest; the road actually ends where the Kamehameha Hwy label is (as can be seen in the aerial photo). From what I understand the cyclist was on the north side of the Kamehameha Hwy, northest of Ke Waena Rd and the cyclist was riding towards the northeast. There are no "bike lanes" in this area. The shoulder (which some here like to wrongly call bike lanes) varies from 1' to 5' wide. In the area of the collision, the shoulder is 4' - 5' wide.

Not surprising ILTB fails to see the point in his rush to hammer an injured cyclist report.

What is not surprising is one of the the usual suspects posting a news snippet about an injured cyclist, without making any point or purpose at all! Except to point fingers at straw men villians and speculate (without a shred of evidence) that the cause might have been a favorite hobbyhorse (evil cell phones wielded by evil motorists).

Not "transportation accidents" Automobile accidents.Automobiles are used for transportation. (And other things, granted, but mostly we think of them as a transportation device.) Automobile accidents are a subset of transportation accidents.

If the roles were reversed and 99% of trips made within cities were done so by bike/ped's and 1% by cars the roads would be very safe indeed. 42,000 americans would not die per year in auto crashes.....Yes, I guess if there's no autos, nobody will die in auto crashes. Instead, they'll die in bus, bike, trolley, whatever crashes. Would it be less than 42,000/year? Perhaps, perhaps not -- depends on the specifics.

You know, that day when 1/100th that many people died and we fought two wars over it?You know, that day started out with a transportation-related accident that turned out to not be accident ...

In any event, I've got a trailer and have pulled my kids in it. Assuming that my risk of an accident on my bike (but without the trailer) is the same as my risk of an accident in a car, then my risk of an accident with the trailer seems significantly higher. I'm significantly slower and less agile, and the trailer is significantly wider than the bike. I can't really ride on a sidewalk even when I think I should, because things like fire hydrants make the sidewalk unpassable (but they don't stop the bike by itself.) The risk of a mechanical problem goes way up as well. To compensate for all these (perceived?) dangers, I absolutely avoid the heavy traffic areas, where I'd be willing to ride them myself. Ultimately, there's a significant number of trips that are perfectly practical by myself that I will not make with the kids in the trailer. Without a car, I might be tempted/forced to make these dangerous trips with the kids in the trailer, and we could end up in the news like this poor woman ...

(Not that I know that the place where the accident happened is such a high risk area, of course.)

(Of course, there's a few things that might make the trailer trips safer. Cars are more likely to give me a lot of room, and my idea of what is an acceptable risk becomes much smaller. But overall, I feel it's significantly more dangerous.)

Still, you haven't answered my question. Knowing that transportation accidents are the #1 killer of children over three, how do you suggest that an appropriately enlightened (i.e. not stupid) parent with children use this information? The obvious answers would be to 1) stay home, or 2) bike or walk instead of drive -- like this woman did. (Of course, to be fair, neither she nor her children have died (yet?), so they're not part of that 42,000/year statistic.)

What is not surprising is one of the the usual suspects posting a news snippet about an injured cyclist, without making any point or purpose at all! Except to point fingers at straw men villians and speculate (without a shred of evidence) that the cause might have been a favorite hobbyhorse (evil cell phones wielded by evil motorists).Also not surprising, when ILTB's first attack fails logic; he simply cuts and paste another attack from his long list.

Regarding riding the wrong direction:

Does the sidepath merge onto the road there, to become a two-way bicycle lane or shoulder?

Regarding riding the wrong direction:

Does the sidepath merge onto the road there, to become a two-way bicycle lane or shoulder?There is no side path on that road. Bad reporting by the media. She was riding on a 4 to 5' wide shoulder.

A horrific accident, lets hope the woman recovers, the police investigate with an unbiased eye, the prosecutors not act as judges declining to file charges, and the driver faces the appropriate negligent driving or 'reckless' charges. 8 AM, eh?

bad reporting by the OP too! 'far off the roadway'= riding on the 4-5 foot shoulder.

Also - and correct me if I'm wrong, CBHI, but aren't bicyclists in Hawaii legally allowed to ride contraflow on the shoulders?

I'm pretty sure she was operating according to the rules of the road and what not.....

Few details, but it does appear the Mom was riding the wrong direction, but was still well off the roadway.

bad reporting by the OP too! 'far off the roadway'= riding on the 4-5 foot shoulder.If you are going to quote me, at least do so accurately. Compared to the 2 - 3' wide bike lanes Honolulu has downtown, riding on a 4 - 5' shoulder, IS well off the roadway.


Also - and correct me if I'm wrong, CBHI, but aren't bicyclists in Hawaii legally allowed to ride contraflow on the shoulders?OK, I will. Wrong way cycling is against the law here on the road, in a bike lane and on a shoulder. In fact, until a few years ago, it was even technically illegal to even ride on a shoulder.

But again, her direction of travel appears to have no bearing on this collision occurring. Riding the wrong way, in this case, may have saved the lives of her children in the trailer, as her bicycle likely buffered the impact to them.

Edit: I double checked for a requirement for riding a bicycle, when on a sidewalk, in the same direction of traffic on that side of the road. I could not find a law under state or city code, maybe it could be in some case law but I doubt it. Or something put in one of the cycling state/city handouts as made up law.

Double Edit: I remember now where the "ride same way on a sidewalk as traffic" came from. A newspaper lady wrote an article titled something like "Bikers, help us not hit you" back in about 1996. It was a BS piece in which the writer blamed cyclist for every near collision she had with a cyclist. In the piece, she quoted the City Ped and Bicycle Coordinator as saying it 'was illegal for bicycles to ride the wrong direction on a sidewalk'. The article also misstated or flat out had several other traffic laws wrong.

I was there shortly after the accident, The driver swerved onto the bike path that runs alongside Kam Hwy. She was distracted because she was "putting on makeup" as she was driving to work. She sat in shock in her car for a good hour after she hit them.
03/01/2009 1:02:32 p.m.

There you go. She was putting on makeup.

I do not care enough to follow this story but I bet that the comment section of the newspaper will be FULL of people criticizing her for transporting her kids outside of a car....

Nope. Check them for yourself.

There you go. She was putting on makeup.

can you provide a source for this quote?

Any word on the mother and her children?

There you go. She was putting on makeup.

Vanity can be deadly

can you provide a source for this quote?
comment on 03/01/2009 1:02:32 p.m. (http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200990228040)


Any word on the mother and her children?Not that I have seen. But a relative did post a comment to the most recent article, so hopefully he may provide an update soon.

Well, they're in my thoughts, and hopefully they'll recover soon.

comment on 03/01/2009 1:02:32 p.m. (http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200990228040)
The "commenter" got there after the accident yet provides so called info on what the driver was doing before the accident. Must be another clarivoyant. Good enough for other swamiis to pass judgement, eh?

The "commenter" got there after the accident yet provides so called info on what the driver was doing before the accident. Must be another clarivoyant. Good enough for other swamiis to pass judgement, eh?Or someone that talked to the eyewitnesses at the scene as the collision happened. Maybe it is second hand information, but it is still information for consideration.

Maybe some day, you will even have something to say that is useful for consideration.:rolleyes:

Maybe some day, you will even have something to say that is useful for consideration.:rolleyes:


There ya go, being clairvoyant again... ;)

Well, they're in my thoughts, and hopefully they'll recover soon.Same here.

Most of the cyclist in Hawaii are easy going people. That is especially true for cyclist from the North Shore. I have seen lots of kids up there ride their bikes to school, lay them down on the grass (no bike rack and no lock) and head into class. One of the teachers rides his dusty mountain bike to school and parks it in his classroom. He also teaches in his baggy bike shorts and T-shirt (pretty laid backed area).

... But again, her direction of travel appears to have no bearing on this collision occurring. ...

I would argue that cycling contraflow increases one's chances of being struck by a right-drifting motorist. If the car is going 45mph and the cyclist is going 15, the closing speed for a contraflow cyclist is 60mph, versus 30 for someone riding in the proper direction. At a closing speed of 30mph, the motorist has twice as much time to notice the cyclist and to respond to his/her presence. With a 10mph cyclist in 30mph traffic, we get the same 2:1 ratio in available reaction time.

I would argue that cycling contraflow increases one's chances of being struck by a right-drifting motorist. If the car is going 45mph and the cyclist is going 15, the closing speed for a contraflow cyclist is 60mph, versus 30 for someone riding in the proper direction. At a closing speed of 30mph, the motorist has twice as much time to notice the cyclist and to respond to his/her presence. With a 10mph cyclist in 30mph traffic, we get the same 2:1 ratio in available reaction time.
Mathematically, I mostly agree. But one of the biggest variables, is how close the motorist and cyclist are when the motorist leaves the road. Both situations have a quantum mechanics level within which the motorist cannot avoid hitting the cyclist even if the motorist immediately begins correcting. Granted for same direction travel that window is much smaller, but quantum cases exist for both situations in which the collision will occur.

The shoulder in the area of this collision is very rough, just like hitting a rumble strip. It seems there was no evidence of braking before the collision.


People at the accident site shortly afterward said there were no skidmarks, as if the car had run directly into the bicycle.

For me, I would much more prefer the probabilities of riding same direction as riding wrong direction.

But, for this collision, I think there is a good probability that the collision would have occurred either way.

Or someone that talked to the eyewitnesses at the scene as the collision happened. Maybe it is second hand information, but it is still information for consideration.

Maybe some day, you will even have something to say that is useful for consideration.:rolleyes:

Or MAYBE it was text messaging, or MAYBE it was alcohol related, or MAYBE it was a physical problem like a seizure or an asthma attack, or MAYBE it was a deliberate attempt at murder, or maybe it was an attempt at suicide, considering the location MAYBE it was a racially motivated hate crime, or MAYBE it was this, or MAYBE it was that.

You are the joker who doesn't get the point that you posted a snippet of news for the purpose of speculating with other conjurers about the collision fitting into your favorite demonized scenarios - like cell phone users, "wrong" bicycling technique, or evil bike lanes.

No new information on the Mom or sons.

But some new information about the location of the collision: unknown to myself and many Oahu cyclist, our fine government painted an extremely short, two way bike lane on what use to be the shoulder on the far side of the highway in about the center of the photo (linked below). Word is that this two way bike lane is less than 200 feet long and is almost always covered in sand (the reason that only North Shore residents are aware of it and the rest of us had no clue it existed, it does not even show up on the Oahu Bike Map).

Side view aerial photo, see center (http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=mm95kh1tvy0q&style=o&lvl=2&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=34624148&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1)

You can see the “bike lane area” in the video from 5 to 9 seconds, where the white car (collision car) is and you can see how it is covered with sand.

Original news video, see 5-9 seconds (http://kgmb9.com/main/content/view/14535/40/)

So it turns out that the cyclist was legally riding exactly where our government indicated she should be (I do not know if it was the City or the State that painted this thing).

Since it is a two way bike lane, it is not clear if the cyclist was legally mandated to ride in this bike lane in the counter flow direction. I do know, that I never have and never will use this dangerous two way < 200 foot bike lane.

:rolleyes: wait a second....

when she was just riding contraflow it was "irrelevant", but now that CBHI has found out it was a two way bike lane her behavior was 'extremely dangerous"

what a piece of work. I mean, what a wild shift of the wind in CBHI's tack.

I was under the impression riding contraflow was allowed along hawaii highways. This seemed to be the case on Maui last time I visited....

there is a Hawaii traffic regulation about riding in the right direction in a bonifide bike lane but this doesn't apply here as this was a two way bikelane.

Regardless, I find CBHI's sudden reversal on this accident loaded with his personal biased inditement against infrastructure.

when she was just riding contraflow it was "irrelevant", but now that CBHI has found out it was a two way bike lane her behavior was 'extremely dangerous"

Her behavior was dangerous, or the bicycle lane striping was dangerous? Give it some thought.

-Kurt

People at the accident site shortly afterward said there were no skidmarks, as if the car had run directly into the bicycle.Experienced accident investigators ... or just `people' ?

Skidmarks = you've lost control. If you're a good driver, you brake hard -- but not hard enough to skid, because if you skid you don't stop as fast and you can't turn. And ABS tend to prevent skid marks even if you mash on the brakes as hard as possible. And don't most cars have ABS nowadays?

So, no skid marks basically tells us ... nothing.

Experienced accident investigators ... or just `people' ?

Skidmarks = you've lost control. If you're a good driver, you brake hard -- but not hard enough to skid, because if you skid you don't stop as fast and you can't turn. And ABS tend to prevent skid marks even if you mash on the brakes as hard as possible. And don't most cars have ABS nowadays?

So, no skid marks basically tells us ... nothing.

Some of the posters here don't need anything before spouting off and ranting about the cause of the accident fitting their preconceived notions about bike lanes, driver/bicyclist behavior, etc. NOTHING is good enough for these self appointed accident forensic experts.

:rolleyes: wait a second....

when she was just riding contraflow it was "irrelevant", but now that CBHI has found out it was a two way bike lane her behavior was 'extremely dangerous"

what a piece of work. I mean, what a wild shift of the wind in CBHI's tack.

....
Regardless, I find CBHI's sudden reversal on this accident loaded with his personal biased inditement against infrastructure.

HEY Bek, stop being a jerk and try some reading comprehension for once. All my post did was update the area of the collision and my not knowing that there was even a two way bike lane at the point the cyclist got hit. My post made NO comment even alluding that the bike lane may have had something to do with the actual collision. I still doubt that the cyclist riding direction played a part in the collision. The only thing the bike lane did was make it legal for the cyclist to ride contra flow and maybe made the cyclist feel more comfortable doing so. It is possible and maybe even likely the cyclist may have still been riding contra flow with just a shoulder (as many local North Shore residents do).

But I think most will agree that it is still a ridiculous bike lane, even if it did not contribute to this collision.


I was under the impression riding contraflow was allowed along hawaii highways. This seemed to be the case on Maui last time I visited....

there is a Hawaii traffic regulation about riding in the right direction in a bonifide bike lane but this doesn't apply here as this was a two way bikelane.Based on what, your reading of Hawaii laws, your observations of some Maui cyclist, or maybe you just rode the wrong direction and did not get a ticket?

An update, the Mom is still in critical condition, but the boys are OK.

UPDATE (http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009903030332)

glad to hear that, cbhi.

I'm more concerned with the family's health and welfare than sniping with CBHI about hawaii riding or this accident.

but look.


It is possible and maybe even likely the cyclist may have still been riding contra flow with just a shoulder (as many local North Shore residents do).

what made me think riding contraflow was part of the flow on the Hawaii islands? maybe it was the locals, broQ!! certainly normal 'rules of the road' behavior to the extent I thought it was legal, mebbee I'd even ridden some of these 'two way' bikelane/shoulder thingies! I'm pretty sure I'd seen singage directing me to ride both ways on one side of some highways on maui, mabye I'm mistaken, but I'd certainly seen many cyclists riding contraflow- and nary a ticket being given out!!


Based on what, your reading of Hawaii laws, your observations of some Maui cyclist, or maybe you just rode the wrong direction and did not get a ticket?

ummm......
riding contra flow with just a shoulder(as many local North Shore residents do)

What i found interesting, cbhi, is you went from an attitude the riders' behavior wasn't part of the equation of the accident to damnifing the 'dangerous' bikelane because it was a two way bikelane - despite it being separated by painted gore zones and only for a short stretch along the roadway.

interesting how the bicyclist behavior - which seems irrelevant in this accident - suddenly became fraught with danger once CBHI found out the road had bicycle specific infrastructure on it.


I feel distracted, negligent drivers cause far more problems for riders in Hawaii than the perils of roadway architecture.

...

I'm more concerned with the family's health and welfare than sniping with CBHI about hawaii riding or this accident.
...
What i found interesting, cbhi, is you went from an attitude the riders' behavior wasn't part of the equation of the accident to damnifing the 'dangerous' bikelane because it was a two way bikelane - despite it being separated by painted gore zones and only for a short stretch along the roadway.

interesting how the bicyclist behavior - which seems irrelevant in this accident - suddenly became fraught with danger once CBHI found out the road had bicycle specific infrastructure on it.No you are not, because you continue sniping in the very same post.

In typical Bek fashion, you intentionally misconstrue a post and then attack based on your false claims, quotes, etc.

Plan and simple, I just reported the updated conditions existing with this collision and you want to turn it into a fight. Grow up Bek, this is not the thread for your BS.

yawn.

I found CBHI's shifting POV amusing...

- how bout those locals riding contraflow, bra?

wow, this forum has some seriously pretentious a holes

wow, this forum has some seriously pretentious a holes

Welcome to Advocacy & Safety!

Speedo

wow, this forum has some seriously pretentious a holes

Also a handful of childish posters who can't put together a coherent sentence or formulate a responsive/rational reply or criticism to a post with which they disagree, so they resort to replies that consist of nothing but an ad hominem argument/defense that are the logical and intellectual equivalent of "Nyaah, Nyaah, Your mamma wears combat boots!"

Also a handful of childish posters who can't put together a coherent sentence or formulate a responsive/rational reply or criticism to a post with which they disagree, so they resort to replies that consist of nothing but an ad hominem argument/defense that are the logical and intellectual equivalent of "Nyaah, Nyaah, Your mamma wears combat boots!"

Are you referring to these?


Can either of you two clairvoyants check your crystal balls and predict tomorrow's winning lottery number? It would be more productive than your ghoulish speculations.
What is not surprising is one of the the usual suspects posting a news snippet about an injured cyclist, without making any point or purpose at all! Except to point fingers at straw men villians and speculate (without a shred of evidence) that the cause might have been a favorite hobbyhorse (evil cell phones wielded by evil motorists).
The "commenter" got there after the accident yet provides so called info on what the driver was doing before the accident. Must be another clarivoyant. Good enough for other swamiis to pass judgement, eh?
Some of the posters here don't need anything before spouting off and ranting about the cause of the accident fitting their preconceived notions about bike lanes, driver/bicyclist behavior, etc. NOTHING is good enough for these self appointed accident forensic experts.

Are you referring to these?


Can either of you two clairvoyants check your crystal balls and predict tomorrow's winning lottery number? It would be more productive than your ghoulish speculations.
What is not surprising is one of the the usual suspects posting a news snippet about an injured cyclist, without making any point or purpose at all! Except to point fingers at straw men villians and speculate (without a shred of evidence) that the cause might have been a favorite hobbyhorse (evil cell phones wielded by evil motorists).
The "commenter" got there after the accident yet provides so called info on what the driver was doing before the accident. Must be another clarivoyant. Good enough for other swamiis to pass judgement, eh?
Some of the posters here don't need anything before spouting off and ranting about the cause of the accident fitting their preconceived notions about bike lanes, driver/bicyclist behavior, etc. NOTHING is good enough for these self appointed accident forensic experts.


Not a bit.

Each one one of them is a direct and pointed response to the OP and follow up posters' remarks, specifically criticizing their posting guesswork about the cause of an accident without a shred of evidence. My posts are specifically critical of BF'ers capitalizing on someone's tragedy to post bogus indictments of their favorite bogymen (cell phones, bike lanes, etc.), the usual suspects rounded up for every accident by the self appointed forensic experts of BF.

Not a bit.

"O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!"