megaman
What do you think of this?
http://www.lacrossetribune.com/articles/2004/08/25/news/1news25.txt
http://www.lacrossetribune.com/articles/2004/08/25/news/1news25.txt
Not Negligent?
Pages :
[1]
2
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.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
- http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in this thread)
- http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
- http://www.bikeforums.net
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
- http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in this thread)
- http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
- http://www.bikeforums.net
twahl
I don't know how she was found not negligent if she was cited for operating while suspended and defective headlights. There could be a civil suit by the family, but that doesn't help the victim. And if the driver behind her saw the bike, she certainly should have. That's tragic, but I'd like to hear more about the lights, especially since wwe were talking about that in another thread.
megaman
Maybe, but the man behind the lady that hit him saw the guy. That's why he when into the left lane.
John E
"That portion of eastbound Hwy. 33 is particularly unsafe for bicyclists because the right lane is narrow and has no shoulder, La Crosse County District Attorney Scott Horne told the jury."
It is unsafe only in the presence of inattentive or aggressive motorists or cars with inadequate lights. It is inconvenient for safe motorists, but so are big trucks.
The problem with many roads which require a high degree of cycling skill and cyclist alertness is that they also require high levels of skill and alertness on the part of motorists. The motorist's brain probably dismissed the cyclist's "blinkie" as something insignificant which did not pose a threat to her, particularly in the context of fast merging traffic. I don't have a brilliant, instant solution, but urge everyone to agitate for better education of all road users and bicycle-friendly facilities. Parting commercial thought -- perhaps I should have bought one of those monster blinkies at Harris Cyclery when I visited Sheldon in June!
It is unsafe only in the presence of inattentive or aggressive motorists or cars with inadequate lights. It is inconvenient for safe motorists, but so are big trucks.
The problem with many roads which require a high degree of cycling skill and cyclist alertness is that they also require high levels of skill and alertness on the part of motorists. The motorist's brain probably dismissed the cyclist's "blinkie" as something insignificant which did not pose a threat to her, particularly in the context of fast merging traffic. I don't have a brilliant, instant solution, but urge everyone to agitate for better education of all road users and bicycle-friendly facilities. Parting commercial thought -- perhaps I should have bought one of those monster blinkies at Harris Cyclery when I visited Sheldon in June!
chemcycle
This from the truck driver who saw the cyclist earlier:
"I was nearly on top of him before I even saw he was there. I had to swerve into the left center lane just to avoid hitting him," Anderson said
Ever heard of "too fast for conditions?"
Obviously, the cyclist had all the equipment required by law (which did not include a light).......
And, although it appears Sprtel's bike might have had a front light and rear reflector as required by the state, witnesses gave conflicting testimony about whether there was a rear light as well
Rear light not required by law...........
"I was nearly on top of him before I even saw he was there. I had to swerve into the left center lane just to avoid hitting him," Anderson said
Ever heard of "too fast for conditions?"
Obviously, the cyclist had all the equipment required by law (which did not include a light).......
And, although it appears Sprtel's bike might have had a front light and rear reflector as required by the state, witnesses gave conflicting testimony about whether there was a rear light as well
Rear light not required by law...........
Dchiefransom
This from the truck driver who saw the cyclist earlier:
Ever heard of "too fast for conditions?"
Obviously, the cyclist had all the equipment required by law (which did not include a light).......
Rear light not required by law...........
The first thing I thought when I read the truck driver's statement was to wonder if a person way up in the air like that couldsee a normal sized rear blinkie. I've been considering two of them, one for car drivers, and one for drivers higher up.
Ever heard of "too fast for conditions?"
Obviously, the cyclist had all the equipment required by law (which did not include a light).......
Rear light not required by law...........
The first thing I thought when I read the truck driver's statement was to wonder if a person way up in the air like that couldsee a normal sized rear blinkie. I've been considering two of them, one for car drivers, and one for drivers higher up.
khuon
IMHO the woman was negligent the moment she got behind the wheel of that car. She was driving while suspended and with a defective headlight in an unregistered vehicle. She made the wrong go/no-go decision to drive without being cleared to do so and in equipment that was deficient for the task. This is in and of itself negligent behaviour. As far as the accident goes, if the truck driver behind her saw the cyclist far enough in advance to have moved over, then she should have been able to as well. The fact that she can't scan her rear view mirror while maintaining forward SA points to the fact that she doesn't have the skills necessary to operate a motor vehicle on the road. She thus assumed the responsibility of what in the aviation world is called PIC (Pilot-In-Command) without the necessary authorisation and skills to accomplish the task and as a result was directly responsible for killing a human being. If that isn't negligence then I don't know what is.
Chris L
If she'd hit a pedestrian or another car she would have been found negligent at best. Wonderful legal system that one.
scarry
This is why I attend Critical Mass. They always see 1,000 bikes. Does it incovenience motorists? I damn well hope so.
twahl
Soemhow I doubt there was a Critical Mass ride for the good doctor to ride in that day. Doing a little more research, it seems that the guy was a serious runner, and had been injured playing la crosse, so he was riding for rehab to help get in shape for an upcoming marathon. Earlier reports, from before the driver was found not negligent, indicate that he didn't have a rear light, and the accident occured before 6 a.m. in late September. It was probably pretty dark...I couldn't find any mention of whether or not he had a helmet on.
By all accounts, the guy was a rising star as a young doctor. He may have been somewhat out of his element on a bike though. In any case his death was a tragedy.
By all accounts, the guy was a rising star as a young doctor. He may have been somewhat out of his element on a bike though. In any case his death was a tragedy.
ctyler
When is it ever going to end! S*** H*** drivers get behind the wheel, drive without a license, drive without insurance, drive without registration, drive drunk, drive while trying to find something on the floor, drive while drinking and eating, drive while working on a laptop on the passenger seat and talking on a cell phone (this person was talking to me), driving - name your own stupidity - and when they kill someone, either a cyclist, pedestrian, or someone in another car they all give the same lame excuse; I didn't see him/her/them. And then if they are charged by the local DA, and that's a big IF, some A** H**** lawyer gets them off or the DA plea bargins the case down to a slap on the wrist. And no one cares. A few months later the same driver does it again. What the F***!
twahl
How many discussions have you seen here about cyclists riding without helmets, riding without lights or reflectors, riding the wrong way on one way streets, cutting corners the wrong way, riding without adequate brakes, riding on dangerous roads, riding with cell phones, riding with headphones, etc. How many times have you seen kids riding with some of the above dangers, riding bikes that are dangerous because they are too big for them, riding with another kid on the handlebars or on axle pegs, or just generallyriding in a way that is dangerous to themselves?
Obviously drivers are more likely to do harm to or kill someone else when they have an accident, but if uniformed cyclists (or informed but arrogant cyclists) don't take responsibility for their own safety, or parents don't take responsibility for the child's safety, why is it that when there's a tragic accident, cyclists scream about all the irresponsible motorists?
Obviously drivers are more likely to do harm to or kill someone else when they have an accident, but if uniformed cyclists (or informed but arrogant cyclists) don't take responsibility for their own safety, or parents don't take responsibility for the child's safety, why is it that when there's a tragic accident, cyclists scream about all the irresponsible motorists?
randya
How many discussions have you seen here about cyclists riding without helmets, riding without lights or reflectors, riding the wrong way on one way streets, cutting corners the wrong way, riding without adequate brakes, riding on dangerous roads, riding with cell phones, riding with headphones, etc. How many times have you seen kids riding with some of the above dangers, riding bikes that are dangerous because they are too big for them, riding with another kid on the handlebars or on axle pegs, or just generallyriding in a way that is dangerous to themselves?
Obviously drivers are more likely to do harm to or kill someone else when they have an accident, but if uniformed cyclists (or informed but arrogant cyclists) don't take responsibility for their own safety, or parents don't take responsibility for the child's safety, why is it that when there's a tragic accident, cyclists scream about all the irresponsible motorists?
Yeah, great. let's just take ALL the fun out of cycling, that would be tremendous!!! Cyclists generally risk only themselves when they do something stupid on the road, motorists risk the lives of many others when they F up. The consequences of disobeying the law should be proportional to the risk of harm to others that your actions entail. IMO, most traffic regs that cyclists typically scoff at would most likely be irrelevant in the first place if bicycles were the most common vehicles on our roads, or if motorists had even a lick of respect for the rights of other road users.
Obviously drivers are more likely to do harm to or kill someone else when they have an accident, but if uniformed cyclists (or informed but arrogant cyclists) don't take responsibility for their own safety, or parents don't take responsibility for the child's safety, why is it that when there's a tragic accident, cyclists scream about all the irresponsible motorists?
Yeah, great. let's just take ALL the fun out of cycling, that would be tremendous!!! Cyclists generally risk only themselves when they do something stupid on the road, motorists risk the lives of many others when they F up. The consequences of disobeying the law should be proportional to the risk of harm to others that your actions entail. IMO, most traffic regs that cyclists typically scoff at would most likely be irrelevant in the first place if bicycles were the most common vehicles on our roads, or if motorists had even a lick of respect for the rights of other road users.
Brillig
This is why I attend Critical Mass. They always see 1,000 bikes. Does it incovenience motorists? I damn well hope so.
Yeah, nothing like pissing off 9000 good drivers to get back at 100 bad ones.
Nice way to recruit some more drivers to the anti-cycling side.
Yeah, nothing like pissing off 9000 good drivers to get back at 100 bad ones.
Nice way to recruit some more drivers to the anti-cycling side.
randya
Yeah, nothing like pissing off 9000 good drivers to get back at 100 bad ones.
Nice way to recruit some more drivers to the anti-cycling side.
The really good drivers generally understand what's going on and are very tolerant. The bad ones never get it. It's the swing vote that CM is after... ;)
PS - I very much doubt that the ratio of "good" to "bad" drivers is 99:1. Please check your math and think about it...I'm not sure that 99% of motorists would call themselves "good" drivers, if asked; and nothing I observe daily on the streets gives me any indication that your numbers are anywhere close to the truth... :D
Nice way to recruit some more drivers to the anti-cycling side.
The really good drivers generally understand what's going on and are very tolerant. The bad ones never get it. It's the swing vote that CM is after... ;)
PS - I very much doubt that the ratio of "good" to "bad" drivers is 99:1. Please check your math and think about it...I'm not sure that 99% of motorists would call themselves "good" drivers, if asked; and nothing I observe daily on the streets gives me any indication that your numbers are anywhere close to the truth... :D
twahl
Yeah, great. let's just take ALL the fun out of cycling, that would be tremendous!!! Cyclists generally risk only themselves when they do something stupid on the road, motorists risk the lives of many others when they F up. The consequences of disobey the law should be proportional to the risk of harm to others that your actions entail. IMO, most traffic regs that cyclists typically scoff at would most likely be irrelevant in the first place if bicycles were the most common vehicles on our roads, or if motorists had even a lick of respect for the rights of other road users.
Bicycles aren't the most common vehicles on the roads, and the roads were not built for them. Roads are built from largely from revenues generated by taxes on motor vehicles and the fuel that they use. The infrastructure that cyclists enjoy wouldn't exist without motorists. Cyclists have demanded and been granted the right to use these roads with the same rules as motorists, and additional rules for their own safety and to decrease the likelihood of accidents between motorists and cyclists. All I'm saying is that cyclists are in the motorist's world and must first take responsibility for their own safety.
The rest of your tirade I won't address except to point to the post you responded to. I'm not ignorant to the fact that automobiles are more danger to others than bicycles are. I happen to use both, and I do so on the same roads, and when I am using one mode of transport, I show the same respect to the other that I would want if our positions were switched.
Bicycles aren't the most common vehicles on the roads, and the roads were not built for them. Roads are built from largely from revenues generated by taxes on motor vehicles and the fuel that they use. The infrastructure that cyclists enjoy wouldn't exist without motorists. Cyclists have demanded and been granted the right to use these roads with the same rules as motorists, and additional rules for their own safety and to decrease the likelihood of accidents between motorists and cyclists. All I'm saying is that cyclists are in the motorist's world and must first take responsibility for their own safety.
The rest of your tirade I won't address except to point to the post you responded to. I'm not ignorant to the fact that automobiles are more danger to others than bicycles are. I happen to use both, and I do so on the same roads, and when I am using one mode of transport, I show the same respect to the other that I would want if our positions were switched.
khuon
Bicycles aren't the most common vehicles on the roads, and the roads were not built for them. Roads are built from largely from revenues generated by taxes on motor vehicles and the fuel that they use. The infrastructure that cyclists enjoy wouldn't exist without motorists. Cyclists have demanded and been granted the right to use these roads with the same rules as motorists, and additional rules for their own safety and to decrease the likelihood of accidents between motorists and cyclists. All I'm saying is that cyclists are in the motorist's world and must first take responsibility for their own safety.
The rest of your tirade I won't address except to point to the post you responded to. I'm not ignorant to the fact that automobiles are more danger to others than bicycles are. I happen to use both, and I do so on the same roads, and when I am using one mode of transport, I show the same respect to the other that I would want if our positions were switched.
Oh boy... here we go again. I think I'll go pop some popcorn and sit back to watch the fireworks.
The rest of your tirade I won't address except to point to the post you responded to. I'm not ignorant to the fact that automobiles are more danger to others than bicycles are. I happen to use both, and I do so on the same roads, and when I am using one mode of transport, I show the same respect to the other that I would want if our positions were switched.
Oh boy... here we go again. I think I'll go pop some popcorn and sit back to watch the fireworks.
Brillig
PS - I very much doubt that the ratio of "good" to "bad" drivers is 99:1. Please check your math and think about it...I'm not sure that 99% of motorists would call themselves "good" drivers, if asked; and nothing I observe daily on the streets gives me any indication that your numbers are anywhere close to the truth... :D
Well, actually it was 90:1 but who's counting? :)
Seems about right for me. I get a driver that truly endangers me about once every four rides. I'm sure I get passed by at least a hundred cars in that time.
Well, actually it was 90:1 but who's counting? :)
Seems about right for me. I get a driver that truly endangers me about once every four rides. I'm sure I get passed by at least a hundred cars in that time.
twahl
I guess the arguement could be made that anyone that violates any traffic law at any time is a "bad" driver, so you could make the case that 90% of drivers are "bad". But in the context of being a danger to cyclists, I'd say that your 90:1 ratio of good to bad is as good a guess as any. It might be worse in a heavy urban environment, but that's largely do to the environment that the driver and cyclist are thrust together in at the same time.
samundsen
Bicycles aren't the most common vehicles on the roads, and the roads were not built for them. Roads are built from largely from revenues generated by taxes on motor vehicles and the fuel that they use. The infrastructure that cyclists enjoy wouldn't exist without motorists. Cyclists have demanded and been granted the right to use these roads with the same rules as motorists, and additional rules for their own safety and to decrease the likelihood of accidents between motorists and cyclists. All I'm saying is that cyclists are in the motorist's world and must first take responsibility for their own safety.
From Leauge of American Bicyclists
http://www.bikeleague.org/about/index.html
The League was founded as the League of American Wheelmen in 1880. Bicyclists, known then as "wheelmen", were challenged by rutted roads of gravel and dirt and faced antagonism from horsemen, wagon drivers, and pedestrians.
In an effort to improve riding conditions so they might better enjoy their newly discovered sport, over 100,000 cyclists from across the United States joined the League to advocate for paved roads. The success of the League in its first advocacy efforts ultimately led to our national highway system.
From Leauge of American Bicyclists
http://www.bikeleague.org/about/index.html
The League was founded as the League of American Wheelmen in 1880. Bicyclists, known then as "wheelmen", were challenged by rutted roads of gravel and dirt and faced antagonism from horsemen, wagon drivers, and pedestrians.
In an effort to improve riding conditions so they might better enjoy their newly discovered sport, over 100,000 cyclists from across the United States joined the League to advocate for paved roads. The success of the League in its first advocacy efforts ultimately led to our national highway system.
twahl
Wow! That's some information I wasn't aware of, and certainly indicates that cyclists were the major impetuous for the inception of the modern road systems. Does this mean it's cyclist's fault? However roads are now and have been for decades been built for and funded primarily by motorists. I mean we pay local and federal income taxes, and property taxes, which certainly go into the mix, but highway departments are primarily funded through automobile license fees, driver's license fees, and huge amounts of taxes on gasoline. Let's not forget special taxes on over the road trucks, which pay an average of about $5000 a year in direct taxes that goes toward road funding.
scarry
Yeah, nothing like pissing off 9000 good drivers to get back at 100 bad ones.
Nice way to recruit some more drivers to the anti-cycling side.
Sounds like there are plenty of anti-cycling trolls right here on this board.
Nice way to recruit some more drivers to the anti-cycling side.
Sounds like there are plenty of anti-cycling trolls right here on this board.
randya
Oh boy... here we go again. I think I'll go pop some popcorn and sit back to watch the fireworks.
Don't worry, I'm not going to bother, I've been too far down that road more than once already. Ignorance truly is bliss, isn't it??? ;)
Don't worry, I'm not going to bother, I've been too far down that road more than once already. Ignorance truly is bliss, isn't it??? ;)
seely
Bicycles aren't the most common vehicles on the roads, and the roads were not built for them. Roads are built from largely from revenues generated by taxes on motor vehicles and the fuel that they use. The infrastructure that cyclists enjoy wouldn't exist without motorists. Cyclists have demanded and been granted the right to use these roads with the same rules as motorists, and additional rules for their own safety and to decrease the likelihood of accidents between motorists and cyclists. All I'm saying is that cyclists are in the motorist's world and must first take responsibility for their own safety.
Haha this is great... its pretty well known that the first roads were paved because of the Wheelmen organizations. I believe Chicago was among the first because of lobbying from the Wheelmens association there. :rolleyes:
Haha this is great... its pretty well known that the first roads were paved because of the Wheelmen organizations. I believe Chicago was among the first because of lobbying from the Wheelmens association there. :rolleyes:
randya
Wow! That's some information I wasn't aware of, and certainly indicates that cyclists were the major impetuous for the inception of the modern road systems. Does this mean it's cyclist's fault? However roads are now and have been for decades been built for and funded primarily by motorists. I mean we pay local and federal income taxes, and property taxes, which certainly go into the mix, but highway departments are primarily funded through automobile license fees, driver's license fees, and huge amounts of taxes on gasoline. Let's not forget special taxes on over the road trucks, which pay an average of about $5000 a year in direct taxes that goes toward road funding.
*sigh*
Local roads are by and large funded by general fund revenues, which come from many sources; in many cities property, sales and other taxes are the primary contributing taxes, not the gas tax. Everyone pays these taxes, whether or not they own or drive a motor vehicle. In effect, those that drive the least subsidize roads for those that drive the most under the US system of funding for local roads. Interstate highway funding is different, but bicycles have much more limited access to the interstate highway system. See:
http://www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf
ABSTRACT
Many people assume that public roads are intended primarily for motor vehicle use, and
that pedestrians and cyclists have less right to use these facilities or to demand special
design features or investments. This reflects the belief that motor vehicles are more
important to society than nonmotorized modes, and that motorists fund roads. This paper
investigates these assumptions. It finds that nonmotorized modes have the legal right to
use most public roads, and that nonmotorized modes can provide significant
transportation benefits, more than is usually recognized in conventional transport
planning. It investigates whether pedestrians and cyclists contribute a fair share toward
roadway funding. Although motorist user fees (fuel taxes, registration charges and tolls)
can be considered to fund most highway expenses, funding for local roads (the roads
pedestrians and cyclists use most) originates mainly from general taxes. Since bicycling
and walking impose lower roadway costs than motorized modes, people who rely
primarily on nonmotorized modes and drive less than average tend to overpay their fair
share of roadway costs and subsidize people who drive more than average. Increasing
public support for non-motorized modes can be justified to help achieve transportation
and equity objectives.
PS - I don't know where you get the idea that gas taxes are huge in the US - compare US gas prices and gas taxes to the gas prices and taxes in European countries or Australia, for example, and we're only paying a pittance...
*sigh*
Local roads are by and large funded by general fund revenues, which come from many sources; in many cities property, sales and other taxes are the primary contributing taxes, not the gas tax. Everyone pays these taxes, whether or not they own or drive a motor vehicle. In effect, those that drive the least subsidize roads for those that drive the most under the US system of funding for local roads. Interstate highway funding is different, but bicycles have much more limited access to the interstate highway system. See:
http://www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf
ABSTRACT
Many people assume that public roads are intended primarily for motor vehicle use, and
that pedestrians and cyclists have less right to use these facilities or to demand special
design features or investments. This reflects the belief that motor vehicles are more
important to society than nonmotorized modes, and that motorists fund roads. This paper
investigates these assumptions. It finds that nonmotorized modes have the legal right to
use most public roads, and that nonmotorized modes can provide significant
transportation benefits, more than is usually recognized in conventional transport
planning. It investigates whether pedestrians and cyclists contribute a fair share toward
roadway funding. Although motorist user fees (fuel taxes, registration charges and tolls)
can be considered to fund most highway expenses, funding for local roads (the roads
pedestrians and cyclists use most) originates mainly from general taxes. Since bicycling
and walking impose lower roadway costs than motorized modes, people who rely
primarily on nonmotorized modes and drive less than average tend to overpay their fair
share of roadway costs and subsidize people who drive more than average. Increasing
public support for non-motorized modes can be justified to help achieve transportation
and equity objectives.
PS - I don't know where you get the idea that gas taxes are huge in the US - compare US gas prices and gas taxes to the gas prices and taxes in European countries or Australia, for example, and we're only paying a pittance...
khuon
Haha this is great... its pretty well known that the first roads were paved because of the Wheelmen organizations. I believe Chicago was among the first because of lobbying from the Wheelmens association there. :rolleyes:
I guess that just goes to show you how brainwashed a society can become. So many people in this country believe that cars are an inherent right and that everything was built to support them. :)
I guess that just goes to show you how brainwashed a society can become. So many people in this country believe that cars are an inherent right and that everything was built to support them. :)
scarry
[QUOTE=randya]*sigh*
Local roads are by and large funded by general fund revenues, which come from many sources; in many cities property, sales and other taxes are the primary contributing taxes, not the gas tax. Everyone pays these taxes, whether or not they own or drive a motor vehicle. In effect, those that drive the least subsidize roads for those that drive the most under the US system of funding for local roads. Interstate highway funding is different, but bicycles have much more limited access to the interstate highway system. See:
Thanks for looking that up, I was looking for that as well.
Here is another site which examines the full cost of gas use, and cost of gas if all the costs were realized at the pump.
http://www.icta.org/ctanews/realpr.htm
Local roads are by and large funded by general fund revenues, which come from many sources; in many cities property, sales and other taxes are the primary contributing taxes, not the gas tax. Everyone pays these taxes, whether or not they own or drive a motor vehicle. In effect, those that drive the least subsidize roads for those that drive the most under the US system of funding for local roads. Interstate highway funding is different, but bicycles have much more limited access to the interstate highway system. See:
Thanks for looking that up, I was looking for that as well.
Here is another site which examines the full cost of gas use, and cost of gas if all the costs were realized at the pump.
http://www.icta.org/ctanews/realpr.htm
twahl
I never said that cyclist's have less right to the roads, I said that we are playing in their world and are primarily responsible for our own safety, just as motorists are responsible for following laws and wearing seat belts.
The funding is a side issue, but the national average taxes paid at the pump is 42 cents a gallon. When I am paying $1.80 a gallon, having almost 1/4 of it being direct taxes, I call it huge. I realize it's higher in other places, but that's a pretty high tax rate that generates a pretty high tax revenue. I may not have been more than partially accurate on the details of the funding, but as I said the funding is a side issue to the responsibility that cyclists have for their own safety.
The funding is a side issue, but the national average taxes paid at the pump is 42 cents a gallon. When I am paying $1.80 a gallon, having almost 1/4 of it being direct taxes, I call it huge. I realize it's higher in other places, but that's a pretty high tax rate that generates a pretty high tax revenue. I may not have been more than partially accurate on the details of the funding, but as I said the funding is a side issue to the responsibility that cyclists have for their own safety.
glomarduck
I never said that cyclist's have less right to the roads, I said that we are playing in their world and are primarily responsible for our own safety, just as motorists are responsible for following laws and wearing seat belts.
The funding is a side issue, but the national average taxes paid at the pump is 42 cents a gallon. When I am paying $1.80 a gallon, having almost 1/4 of it being direct taxes, I call it huge. I realize it's higher in other places, but that's a pretty high tax rate that generates a pretty high tax revenue. I may not have been more than partially accurate on the details of the funding, but as I said the funding is a side issue to the responsibility that cyclists have for their own safety.
WHO'S STREETS.................OUR STREETS
The funding is a side issue, but the national average taxes paid at the pump is 42 cents a gallon. When I am paying $1.80 a gallon, having almost 1/4 of it being direct taxes, I call it huge. I realize it's higher in other places, but that's a pretty high tax rate that generates a pretty high tax revenue. I may not have been more than partially accurate on the details of the funding, but as I said the funding is a side issue to the responsibility that cyclists have for their own safety.
WHO'S STREETS.................OUR STREETS
twahl
And since we appear to be talking about the US, you and I, let's not quote Canadian tax structures. Referencing my own state, Virginia (http://www.transportation.virginia.gov/SecTran/ClementColumn-No1.cfm):
"In the 1986 Special Session convened by then-Governor Gerald L. Baliles, the General Assembly created the current framework by which transportation is financed in Virginia. Within this framework, transportation revenues are divided between two separate funds, each designated for specific purposes.
The Highway Maintenance and Operating Fund (HMOF) receives most of the revenues generated by three sources: the state's gas tax, motor vehicle sales tax, and the annual vehicle license fee. In the coming fiscal year, deposits to the fund will total approximately $1.4 billion.
These revenues are dedicated principally for the maintenance of Virginia's extensive network of interstate, primary, urban and secondary roads—the third largest system in the nation. The costs to resurface roads, patch potholes, replace guardrails and mow grass are examples of expenditures from this fund. In addition, it supports the operations of the Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the Department of Rail and Public Transportation.
A second fund, the Transportation Trust Fund (TTF), finances the construction of new transportation infrastructure. The largest contribution comes from ˝ cent of Virginia's sales tax; the fund also receives a share of the revenue generated by the state's gas tax, motor vehicle sales tax and annual vehicle license fee. Deposits will total approximately $1 billion in the coming fiscal year. The law divides the TTF investment according to a formula: highways (78.7%), mass transit (14.7%), ports (4.2%) and airports (2.4%)."
In short, maintenance is primarily paid for as I stated originally, although I hadn't done the research. However I'll concede that new construction appears to be largely funded by part of the state sales tax, but none of it comes from income taxes.
"In the 1986 Special Session convened by then-Governor Gerald L. Baliles, the General Assembly created the current framework by which transportation is financed in Virginia. Within this framework, transportation revenues are divided between two separate funds, each designated for specific purposes.
The Highway Maintenance and Operating Fund (HMOF) receives most of the revenues generated by three sources: the state's gas tax, motor vehicle sales tax, and the annual vehicle license fee. In the coming fiscal year, deposits to the fund will total approximately $1.4 billion.
These revenues are dedicated principally for the maintenance of Virginia's extensive network of interstate, primary, urban and secondary roads—the third largest system in the nation. The costs to resurface roads, patch potholes, replace guardrails and mow grass are examples of expenditures from this fund. In addition, it supports the operations of the Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the Department of Rail and Public Transportation.
A second fund, the Transportation Trust Fund (TTF), finances the construction of new transportation infrastructure. The largest contribution comes from ˝ cent of Virginia's sales tax; the fund also receives a share of the revenue generated by the state's gas tax, motor vehicle sales tax and annual vehicle license fee. Deposits will total approximately $1 billion in the coming fiscal year. The law divides the TTF investment according to a formula: highways (78.7%), mass transit (14.7%), ports (4.2%) and airports (2.4%)."
In short, maintenance is primarily paid for as I stated originally, although I hadn't done the research. However I'll concede that new construction appears to be largely funded by part of the state sales tax, but none of it comes from income taxes.
Allister
Isn't twahl how Elmer Fudd would say troll?
'Be vewy vewy quiet. I'm hunting twahls. hehehehehe'
'Be vewy vewy quiet. I'm hunting twahls. hehehehehe'
TechJD
That portion of eastbound Hwy. 33 is particularly unsafe for bicyclists because the right lane is narrow and has no shoulder, La Crosse County District Attorney Scott Horne told the jury.
Heres why she wasnt convicted
he gave his own case away
"La Crosse County District Attorney" is who needs to be informed that bikes have same rights on the road as automobiles
Heres why she wasnt convicted
he gave his own case away
"La Crosse County District Attorney" is who needs to be informed that bikes have same rights on the road as automobiles
twahl
Isn't twahl how Elmer Fudd would say troll?
'Be vewy vewy quiet. I'm hunting twahls. hehehehehe'
Perhaps, but Elmer was never very well armed either.
'Be vewy vewy quiet. I'm hunting twahls. hehehehehe'
Perhaps, but Elmer was never very well armed either.
randya
Heres why she wasnt convicted; he gave his own case away: "La Crosse County District Attorney" is who needs to be informed that bikes have same rights on the road as automobiles
The authorities identifying with and siding with the motorist??? I'm shocked, just shocked!!! The district attorney in this case SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADVOCATING FOR THE CYCLIST and against the motorist, who was the defendent after all. The cyclist was unfortunately deceased and so couldn't speak for himself... :mad:
All so typically dysfunctional American behavior...
The authorities identifying with and siding with the motorist??? I'm shocked, just shocked!!! The district attorney in this case SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADVOCATING FOR THE CYCLIST and against the motorist, who was the defendent after all. The cyclist was unfortunately deceased and so couldn't speak for himself... :mad:
All so typically dysfunctional American behavior...
John E
I never said that cyclist's have less right to the roads, I said that we are playing in their world and are primarily responsible for our own safety, just as motorists are responsible for following laws and wearing seat belts.
The funding is a side issue, but the national average taxes paid at the pump is 42 cents a gallon. When I am paying $1.80 a gallon, having almost 1/4 of it being direct taxes, I call it huge. I realize it's higher in other places, but that's a pretty high tax rate that generates a pretty high tax revenue. I may not have been more than partially accurate on the details of the funding, but as I said the funding is a side issue to the responsibility that cyclists have for their own safety.
1) The Prime Directive for every motorist is to avoid collision with any person, object, or other vehicle. I drive defensively, I jog defensively, and I cycle defensively (and as visibly as practicable), but I also very reasonably expect all other road users to be alert, respectful, and rational. That first requirement is the one which worries me most.
2) In the U.S., the private automobile is the most highly subsidized form of transportation in history. Gasoline taxes cover only a minor percentage of the true economic, social, and environmental cost of driving and its infrastructure.
The funding is a side issue, but the national average taxes paid at the pump is 42 cents a gallon. When I am paying $1.80 a gallon, having almost 1/4 of it being direct taxes, I call it huge. I realize it's higher in other places, but that's a pretty high tax rate that generates a pretty high tax revenue. I may not have been more than partially accurate on the details of the funding, but as I said the funding is a side issue to the responsibility that cyclists have for their own safety.
1) The Prime Directive for every motorist is to avoid collision with any person, object, or other vehicle. I drive defensively, I jog defensively, and I cycle defensively (and as visibly as practicable), but I also very reasonably expect all other road users to be alert, respectful, and rational. That first requirement is the one which worries me most.
2) In the U.S., the private automobile is the most highly subsidized form of transportation in history. Gasoline taxes cover only a minor percentage of the true economic, social, and environmental cost of driving and its infrastructure.
twahl
1) The Prime Directive for every motorist is to avoid collision with any person, object, or other vehicle. I drive defensively, I jog defensively, and I cycle defensively (and as visibly as practicable), but I also very reasonably expect all other road users to be alert, respectful, and rational. That first requirement is the one which worries me most.
2) In the U.S., the private automobile is the most highly subsidized form of transportation in history. Gasoline taxes cover only a minor percentage of the true economic, social, and environmental cost of driving and its infrastructure.
1) I agree entirely with your thought process. I also understand the reality that drivers aren't as aware of cyclists as they are of other vehicles, and as a cyclist I must first look out for myself. That's the only point I am trying to make.
2) Maybe true, but this isn't about economic, social, or environmental costs. As I've been forced to research for this thread, the majority of the infrastructure is paid for by motorists. The only reason I brought this up in the first place (big mistake on my part, obviously) was to support the arguement that as a cyclist on the road, I am in the world of the automobile and must first look out for myself, and part of that is to help motorists look out for me.
This doctor's death was tragic and never should have happened. If they driver was stopped earlier that day as the articles indicate, her license and registration should have been run and she should not have been allowed to even be on the road when the accident occured. Unfortunately this may be part of the reason that the prosecutor was soft on her, covering for the cop that warned her about the headlight and did not, apparently, run her plates and license. I'm just saying that maybe the doctor's bike was not adequately equipped for riding in darkness.
2) In the U.S., the private automobile is the most highly subsidized form of transportation in history. Gasoline taxes cover only a minor percentage of the true economic, social, and environmental cost of driving and its infrastructure.
1) I agree entirely with your thought process. I also understand the reality that drivers aren't as aware of cyclists as they are of other vehicles, and as a cyclist I must first look out for myself. That's the only point I am trying to make.
2) Maybe true, but this isn't about economic, social, or environmental costs. As I've been forced to research for this thread, the majority of the infrastructure is paid for by motorists. The only reason I brought this up in the first place (big mistake on my part, obviously) was to support the arguement that as a cyclist on the road, I am in the world of the automobile and must first look out for myself, and part of that is to help motorists look out for me.
This doctor's death was tragic and never should have happened. If they driver was stopped earlier that day as the articles indicate, her license and registration should have been run and she should not have been allowed to even be on the road when the accident occured. Unfortunately this may be part of the reason that the prosecutor was soft on her, covering for the cop that warned her about the headlight and did not, apparently, run her plates and license. I'm just saying that maybe the doctor's bike was not adequately equipped for riding in darkness.
twahl
Of course I do, but there are a few here that seem to think that all motorists are evil and that as cyclists, they have a responsibility to force motorists to give way to cyclists in every instance, whether the cyclist is following the laws and acting in the interest of his or her own safety or not.
chemcycle
1)
2) Maybe true, but this isn't about economic, social, or environmental costs. As I've been forced to research for this thread, the majority of the infrastructure is paid for by motorists. The only reason I brought this up in the first place (big mistake on my part, obviously) was to support the arguement that as a cyclist on the road, I am in the world of the automobile and must first look out for myself, and part of that is to help motorists look out for me.
What does the funding of infrastructure have to do with anything?? How does this explain which "world" we are in?
If sidewalks are funded by property taxes does that mean pedestrians need to look out for houses on the sidewalk??
Why don't you look for a thread where the driver did the right thing (this ain't the case).................and still hit someone.....your point might make sense there........
2) Maybe true, but this isn't about economic, social, or environmental costs. As I've been forced to research for this thread, the majority of the infrastructure is paid for by motorists. The only reason I brought this up in the first place (big mistake on my part, obviously) was to support the arguement that as a cyclist on the road, I am in the world of the automobile and must first look out for myself, and part of that is to help motorists look out for me.
What does the funding of infrastructure have to do with anything?? How does this explain which "world" we are in?
If sidewalks are funded by property taxes does that mean pedestrians need to look out for houses on the sidewalk??
Why don't you look for a thread where the driver did the right thing (this ain't the case).................and still hit someone.....your point might make sense there........
twahl
My point might also make sense if you read some of the articles on this accident that were written prior to the one about the lady being found not negligent. It sounds like she is an elderly, somewhat nervous driver. This doesn't excuse her. From prior atricles, closer to the time of the accident, it seems that the cyclist did not have a rear light, and it was dark. That's where my point comes in, he was on the road and may not have taken adequate precautions for his own safety. I am not defending the driver, she was clearly wrong. I am just trying to make what I thought was a pretty simple point: As a cyclist, I am the first line of defense for my own safety in the reality of the world we ride in being dominated by motor vehicles. For some reason a few people are either ignoring that point or quietly accepting it, while latching onto and argueing the relevence of where the funding for the roads comes from, even though I have, I thought, made if fairly clear that I meant that only as a side point to demonstrate that cyclists can't realistically expect that all people driving cars will always be aware of and repsect the rights of cyclists, so we must first look out for ourselves.
CPcyclist
Who pays is in propotion IMO to who does the most damage to the road. BTP most cyclist drive a motroized vehicle once in a while.
randya
Maybe true, but this isn't about economic, social, or environmental costs. As I've been forced to research for this thread, the majority of the infrastructure is paid for by motorists. The only reason I brought this up in the first place (big mistake on my part, obviously) was to support the arguement that as a cyclist on the road, I am in the world of the automobile and must first look out for myself, and part of that is to help motorists look out for me.
Remember, you opened this part of the discussion up, and IMO yes, it is about economic, social and environmental costs above and beyond the simple infrastructure costs. Any true anaylsis should consider them all; and furthermore, you have only "proved" that in your little part of the world gas and license taxes are supposed to pay for most of the road infrastructure (which by the way, usually works like this - the gas and license taxes are fully earmarked for roads, and 100% of these taxes do indeed go towards the infrastructure; however, if there are shortfalls in the local city's transportation budget, where does the money to cover the shortfalls come from? Either other taxes or general funds are used, which other people pay for, also, or the service level drops ~ i.e. more potholes, etc.). Why don't you do some serious research on the transportation budgets of the 20 largest metropolitan areas in the US and report back? Plus, as a further example of the financial benefits of bicycling to road infrastructure, there is an avoided cost of repair for each light-weight bicyclist on the road instead of a 3 ton SUV, and the avoided cost of road widening and expansion for each bicyclist on the road instead of a bunch of bloated SUVs.
I'm just saying that maybe the doctor's bike was not adequately equipped for riding in darkness.
And now you're trying to blame the victim again for the accident. Also typical of a person who identifies with the motoring majority first, and with cyclists second. To be legal, all the cyclist probably needed was an adequate reflector, which apparently he had. Because the headlights on the car were defective, it's possible (probable?) that the vehicle's headlamps did not properly illuminate the reflector. The driver was apparently also distracted enough that she failed to see the blinkie light that other witnesses said the cyclist was using. IMO, all this points to negligence by the driver, with indications of a very poor prosecution, resulting in a unsatisfactory verdict. If I were the cyclist's family, I would hire an attorney and make a motion for a mistrial on some kind of appeal. Any lawyers out there, does the victim's family have any standing?
And by the way, I'm not saying that the cyclist couldn't have done more to avoid this situation, such as more lights and brighter clothes; but he's still basically an innocent that was run down by a distracted motorist operating an illegal vehicle. Also, there are some other facts we don't know, such as was this the only or most convenient route available to the cyclist? Again, I don't see how answers to these or any other similar questions would absolve the motorist from the negligence charge - the cyclist was operating on a road that he was legally allowed to be on, apparently with legal equipment and he was run down by a distracted motorist operating an illegal vehicle. Should I repeat it again? :rolleyes:
Remember, you opened this part of the discussion up, and IMO yes, it is about economic, social and environmental costs above and beyond the simple infrastructure costs. Any true anaylsis should consider them all; and furthermore, you have only "proved" that in your little part of the world gas and license taxes are supposed to pay for most of the road infrastructure (which by the way, usually works like this - the gas and license taxes are fully earmarked for roads, and 100% of these taxes do indeed go towards the infrastructure; however, if there are shortfalls in the local city's transportation budget, where does the money to cover the shortfalls come from? Either other taxes or general funds are used, which other people pay for, also, or the service level drops ~ i.e. more potholes, etc.). Why don't you do some serious research on the transportation budgets of the 20 largest metropolitan areas in the US and report back? Plus, as a further example of the financial benefits of bicycling to road infrastructure, there is an avoided cost of repair for each light-weight bicyclist on the road instead of a 3 ton SUV, and the avoided cost of road widening and expansion for each bicyclist on the road instead of a bunch of bloated SUVs.
I'm just saying that maybe the doctor's bike was not adequately equipped for riding in darkness.
And now you're trying to blame the victim again for the accident. Also typical of a person who identifies with the motoring majority first, and with cyclists second. To be legal, all the cyclist probably needed was an adequate reflector, which apparently he had. Because the headlights on the car were defective, it's possible (probable?) that the vehicle's headlamps did not properly illuminate the reflector. The driver was apparently also distracted enough that she failed to see the blinkie light that other witnesses said the cyclist was using. IMO, all this points to negligence by the driver, with indications of a very poor prosecution, resulting in a unsatisfactory verdict. If I were the cyclist's family, I would hire an attorney and make a motion for a mistrial on some kind of appeal. Any lawyers out there, does the victim's family have any standing?
And by the way, I'm not saying that the cyclist couldn't have done more to avoid this situation, such as more lights and brighter clothes; but he's still basically an innocent that was run down by a distracted motorist operating an illegal vehicle. Also, there are some other facts we don't know, such as was this the only or most convenient route available to the cyclist? Again, I don't see how answers to these or any other similar questions would absolve the motorist from the negligence charge - the cyclist was operating on a road that he was legally allowed to be on, apparently with legal equipment and he was run down by a distracted motorist operating an illegal vehicle. Should I repeat it again? :rolleyes:
TechJD
My point might also make sense if you read some of the articles on this accident that were written prior to the one about the lady being found not negligent. It sounds like she is an elderly, somewhat nervous driver. This doesn't excuse her. From prior atricles, closer to the time of the accident, it seems that the cyclist did not have a rear light, and it was dark. That's where my point comes in, he was on the road and may not have taken adequate precautions for his own safety. I am not defending the driver, she was clearly wrong. I am just trying to make what I thought was a pretty simple point: As a cyclist, I am the first line of defense for my own safety in the reality of the world we ride in being dominated by motor vehicles. For some reason a few people are either ignoring that point or quietly accepting it, while latching onto and argueing the relevence of where the funding for the roads comes from, even though I have, I thought, made if fairly clear that I meant that only as a side point to demonstrate that cyclists can't realistically expect that all people driving cars will always be aware of and repsect the rights of cyclists, so we must first look out for ourselves.
well it's funny the driver behind her seen him before she hit him
she wasnt pay attenction to where she was goin eve nshe admited she was watching the car behind her
maybe she thought it might be a Cop
here in Ky if you hit anything and you dont have insuarance or had your license taken away it's automaticly You Fault, you hit someone in the read ( unless you can prove they stoped just to make you hit them ) it's Your Fault
well it's funny the driver behind her seen him before she hit him
she wasnt pay attenction to where she was goin eve nshe admited she was watching the car behind her
maybe she thought it might be a Cop
here in Ky if you hit anything and you dont have insuarance or had your license taken away it's automaticly You Fault, you hit someone in the read ( unless you can prove they stoped just to make you hit them ) it's Your Fault
twahl
Nowhere did I blame the cyclist. I said he may not have had adequate lighting, as evidenced by several (apparently prior to accident) reports by local truckers that they had nearly hit the guy on different occasions because they did not see him until they were right on top of him. Having only a reflector in the rear may meet the requirements of the law but does not meet the requirements of personal safety.
I also at no point absolved the driver of responsibility.
Again a fairly simple concept: being right doesn't keep you alive, and it doesn't help you much if you are dead. Innocent and dead is still dead. Are you arguing the point that as a cyclist, one should not make as much effort as possible to prevent yourself from becoming dead?
I'm not even going to continue with the financing of roads. It's apparently become far to great of a distraction to the simple point that cyclists must first take care of themselves.
I do.
I also at no point absolved the driver of responsibility.
Again a fairly simple concept: being right doesn't keep you alive, and it doesn't help you much if you are dead. Innocent and dead is still dead. Are you arguing the point that as a cyclist, one should not make as much effort as possible to prevent yourself from becoming dead?
I'm not even going to continue with the financing of roads. It's apparently become far to great of a distraction to the simple point that cyclists must first take care of themselves.
I do.
Seanholio
The IRS thinks I make too much money, and likes to redistribute it to poor people. Do I get to own them?
Wessi
Hi all,
I'm so glad that you are all discussing this.
"the doctor" was an college friend of mine. Wessi, my username, is the only name he called me...at one point, I asked him if he even knew my first name. He was a wonderful man, so serious, yet could just turn around and be totally silly. He had a close circle of friends, and they were ready after the funeral to have a few words with that woman. We were all just devistated, because he was the one of us that we thought would do great things. All you had to do was talk to him for 15 minutes to see it.
Knowing Scott, let me tell you a bit. He was a serious runner who we would make a big deal if he ate pizza or dessert at a meal. When it came to his training, he was bordering on OCD. I have no doubt that he was wearing a helmet and had all the appropriate safety equipment. However, he was new to biking.
My dad is also a cyclist, having done RAGBRAI for five years. I regret that I didn't even know that he took up cycling for cross training (he had injured his knee while training for the Chicago marathon). There was so much I could have told him.....(sob)
I do another sport (figure skating) that requires me to be on the roads in the wee hours of the morning. Thankfully, my dad taught me to always be cognizant of disturbances on the right side of the road, and especially now, I'm very careful to watch out for bikers when I'm going to the ice rink before sunrise.
This will be my only post on this forum, but thank you for letting me tell you about him. And thanks for the article. It will be passed on to other friends.
I'm so glad that you are all discussing this.
"the doctor" was an college friend of mine. Wessi, my username, is the only name he called me...at one point, I asked him if he even knew my first name. He was a wonderful man, so serious, yet could just turn around and be totally silly. He had a close circle of friends, and they were ready after the funeral to have a few words with that woman. We were all just devistated, because he was the one of us that we thought would do great things. All you had to do was talk to him for 15 minutes to see it.
Knowing Scott, let me tell you a bit. He was a serious runner who we would make a big deal if he ate pizza or dessert at a meal. When it came to his training, he was bordering on OCD. I have no doubt that he was wearing a helmet and had all the appropriate safety equipment. However, he was new to biking.
My dad is also a cyclist, having done RAGBRAI for five years. I regret that I didn't even know that he took up cycling for cross training (he had injured his knee while training for the Chicago marathon). There was so much I could have told him.....(sob)
I do another sport (figure skating) that requires me to be on the roads in the wee hours of the morning. Thankfully, my dad taught me to always be cognizant of disturbances on the right side of the road, and especially now, I'm very careful to watch out for bikers when I'm going to the ice rink before sunrise.
This will be my only post on this forum, but thank you for letting me tell you about him. And thanks for the article. It will be passed on to other friends.
John Ridley
When I am paying $1.80 a gallon, having almost 1/4 of it being direct taxes, I call it huge
If gasoline were taxed such that all of the externalities of operating motor vehicles were paid for by those taxes, gasoline would probably cost $5 a gallon, and 80% or more of it would be taxes.
But instead, the U.S. chooses to allow motor vehicles to operate more cheaply than they should, and pay the costs of roads, road maintenance, health care, emergency services, law enforcement, and many other things out of other sources.
I, for one, would actually LIKE to see $4 a gallon gasoline. If we had that for 10 years, we might START to see some shift towards sanity.
BTW, gasoline right now costs 1/2 of what it did at peak, adjusted for inflation. If you took the price at peak (can't remember when that was, nineteen-eighty-something) and adjust for inflation, gasoline WOULD be at $4 a gallon.
If gasoline were taxed such that all of the externalities of operating motor vehicles were paid for by those taxes, gasoline would probably cost $5 a gallon, and 80% or more of it would be taxes.
But instead, the U.S. chooses to allow motor vehicles to operate more cheaply than they should, and pay the costs of roads, road maintenance, health care, emergency services, law enforcement, and many other things out of other sources.
I, for one, would actually LIKE to see $4 a gallon gasoline. If we had that for 10 years, we might START to see some shift towards sanity.
BTW, gasoline right now costs 1/2 of what it did at peak, adjusted for inflation. If you took the price at peak (can't remember when that was, nineteen-eighty-something) and adjust for inflation, gasoline WOULD be at $4 a gallon.
CdCf
Gas is between $4.50 and $6 in most of northern Europe...
Just about $5 in Sweden at the moment.
Just about $5 in Sweden at the moment.
genec
And by the way, I'm not saying that the cyclist couldn't have done more to avoid this situation, such as more lights and brighter clothes; but he's still basically an innocent that was run down by a distracted motorist operating an illegal vehicle. Also, there are some other facts we don't know, such as was this the only or most convenient route available to the cyclist? Again, I don't see how answers to these or any other similar questions would absolve the motorist from the negligence charge - the cyclist was operating on a road that he was legally allowed to be on, apparently with legal equipment and he was run down by a distracted motorist operating an illegal vehicle. Should I repeat it again? :rolleyes:
How about the local county/city? This was a 4 lane road that narrowed to a two lane road... was this one of those situations where a "bike lane" turns into a "bike route" and biker is expected to "beam out" at one location and "beam in" at another? This is no doubt an area where the "take the road crowd" would have taken the road... and while they would have been fully legal and well within their rights, here is a case of distracted driver going too fast for conditions that all too tragically lead to death.
This driver was already well in the wrong, but like so many, they just continue with their bad habits and motor on. This is why I am an advocate of bike lanes, with more than just stripes on the road... had there been any kind of roadbump or other "barrier," even for just this small part of the road, most likely the rider would still be alive.
Now before the "Same road, Same rules" and the "Take the Road" folks jump all over this... I do agree with you in most cases; but there are dangerous stretches of road that are isolated connectors and boulevards (this was a 4 lane road, and I suspect had a higher speed limit) that should be "fixed" in a way to make biking safer... The addition of a narrow strip of asphalt to the side of this road, with small reflector bumps (I know she had a headlight problem, but the tires would have "sounded" on the bumps) for road areas like this or where the speed delta between bikes and cars is high, is what I believe is needed.
This area was well known... a bit of advocacy for cyclists could might have initiated something to make it safer. Sharing the road here is a bad idea.
How about the local county/city? This was a 4 lane road that narrowed to a two lane road... was this one of those situations where a "bike lane" turns into a "bike route" and biker is expected to "beam out" at one location and "beam in" at another? This is no doubt an area where the "take the road crowd" would have taken the road... and while they would have been fully legal and well within their rights, here is a case of distracted driver going too fast for conditions that all too tragically lead to death.
This driver was already well in the wrong, but like so many, they just continue with their bad habits and motor on. This is why I am an advocate of bike lanes, with more than just stripes on the road... had there been any kind of roadbump or other "barrier," even for just this small part of the road, most likely the rider would still be alive.
Now before the "Same road, Same rules" and the "Take the Road" folks jump all over this... I do agree with you in most cases; but there are dangerous stretches of road that are isolated connectors and boulevards (this was a 4 lane road, and I suspect had a higher speed limit) that should be "fixed" in a way to make biking safer... The addition of a narrow strip of asphalt to the side of this road, with small reflector bumps (I know she had a headlight problem, but the tires would have "sounded" on the bumps) for road areas like this or where the speed delta between bikes and cars is high, is what I believe is needed.
This area was well known... a bit of advocacy for cyclists could might have initiated something to make it safer. Sharing the road here is a bad idea.
Feldman
The fact of the early LAB lobbying for paved roads reminds me of an 80's bumper sticker to the idea that American Indians had too slack an immigration policy!
Chris L
How about the local county/city? This was a 4 lane road that narrowed to a two lane road... was this one of those situations where a "bike lane" turns into a "bike route" and biker is expected to "beam out" at one location and "beam in" at another? This is no doubt an area where the "take the road crowd" would have taken the road... and while they would have been fully legal and well within their rights, here is a case of distracted driver going too fast for conditions that all too tragically lead to death.
This driver was already well in the wrong, but like so many, they just continue with their bad habits and motor on. This is why I am an advocate of bike lanes, with more than just stripes on the road... had there been any kind of roadbump or other "barrier," even for just this small part of the road, most likely the rider would still be alive.
However, was this cyclist taking the road correctly? That much is unclear from the article. We also need to ask ourselves whether a distracted driver would have noticed a "bump" or anything else of that nature anyway. I deal with plenty of drivers everyday who would not.
Now before the "Same road, Same rules" and the "Take the Road" folks jump all over this... I do agree with you in most cases; but there are dangerous stretches of road that are isolated connectors and boulevards (this was a 4 lane road, and I suspect had a higher speed limit) that should be "fixed" in a way to make biking safer... The addition of a narrow strip of asphalt to the side of this road, with small reflector bumps (I know she had a headlight problem, but the tires would have "sounded" on the bumps) for road areas like this or where the speed delta between bikes and cars is high, is what I believe is needed.
We've had this discussion before, and I really don't want to hijack this thread too much. However, it should be noted that while bike lanes can be useful in a situation like this, we also need to be aware that if incorrectly designed, they can cause more problems than they solve. The small reflector bumps are a good idea provided they don't endanger the cyclist who has to leave the bike lane to avoid a parked car, broken glass or a shopping trolley (as I had to today).
This area was well known... a bit of advocacy for cyclists could might have initiated something to make it safer. Sharing the road here is a bad idea.
That's why I would have been claiming it rather than trying to share it.
This driver was already well in the wrong, but like so many, they just continue with their bad habits and motor on. This is why I am an advocate of bike lanes, with more than just stripes on the road... had there been any kind of roadbump or other "barrier," even for just this small part of the road, most likely the rider would still be alive.
However, was this cyclist taking the road correctly? That much is unclear from the article. We also need to ask ourselves whether a distracted driver would have noticed a "bump" or anything else of that nature anyway. I deal with plenty of drivers everyday who would not.
Now before the "Same road, Same rules" and the "Take the Road" folks jump all over this... I do agree with you in most cases; but there are dangerous stretches of road that are isolated connectors and boulevards (this was a 4 lane road, and I suspect had a higher speed limit) that should be "fixed" in a way to make biking safer... The addition of a narrow strip of asphalt to the side of this road, with small reflector bumps (I know she had a headlight problem, but the tires would have "sounded" on the bumps) for road areas like this or where the speed delta between bikes and cars is high, is what I believe is needed.
We've had this discussion before, and I really don't want to hijack this thread too much. However, it should be noted that while bike lanes can be useful in a situation like this, we also need to be aware that if incorrectly designed, they can cause more problems than they solve. The small reflector bumps are a good idea provided they don't endanger the cyclist who has to leave the bike lane to avoid a parked car, broken glass or a shopping trolley (as I had to today).
This area was well known... a bit of advocacy for cyclists could might have initiated something to make it safer. Sharing the road here is a bad idea.
That's why I would have been claiming it rather than trying to share it.
Previous - Top - Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007 BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.