Air

Sickening

stevesurf

This is just terrible and reinforces a definite need to separate cyclists safely. We'll eventually, however, always have to share the road eventually. It's just terrible that he did not wear a helmet, but I doubt it would have helped as the Ace truck was most likely (my assumption) barreling down and not necessarily giving the cyclist the buffer he needed.

The DN just seems to add to the spin that we're a nuisance...what to do in a city that is just moving to fast for safety...

Stacy

According to Newsday his name was David Smith.

The Sixth Avenue lane is one of the older, and probably most dangerous, lanes in the City. I remember Koch installed concrete barriers through Herald Square and then wound up pulling them out a few weeks later. I don't remember the reasoning behind that - maybe the lane was too narrow?

Ironically I believe the portion south of 34th Street is a memorial bike lane that was named for another cyclist killed there.

Bacciagalupe

Actually, it pretty much is the cyclists' responsibility to ride far enough away from parked cars not to get doored.

As to Streetsblog's reading that the articles make it sound like it was exclusively the cyclists' fault, I disagree.

And Streetsblog's suggestion that someone should be charged? Sounds rather ludicrous to me. If the truck ran a red light, or the driver was intoxicated, or was talking on a cell phone, or was driving in the bike lane, then that's a totally different ball o' wax. I really cannot imagine why anyone should face criminal charges for this sad event.

(The author's biased attitude is basically why I stopped reading that blog, btw.)


That's a nice thought, but unfortunately your reasoning is flawed.

The vast majority (89%) of crashes within 25 feet of an intersection, not in bike lanes or in mid-block. Somewhere around 1.5-2% of all fatal crashes between 1996 and 2005 were in or near a bike lane, and only one of those was the result of an actual collision with a motor vehicle in a bike lane. ( https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/download...fatalities.pdf )

So again, while this is a sad occurence, let's not ditch a statistical analysis of 9 years' worth of data because of one incident.

stevesurf

Yep you're right; interesting stats - I knew I was generalizing; partly because I still have a fear of getting hit again - something I never overcame. I am sure that there are many that share this, but don't say it. Perhaps separation is the solution for those of us; perhaps not.

Stacy

True but if you ride three feet out from the parked cars, on Sixth Avenue, then you're no longer in the bike lane.

According to Newsday, one driver received three tickets. I presume it was the driver of the truck that was parked at a hydrant and originally doored the cyclist.

Air

The target of someone who should be charged is not the truck that struck him but the passenger and/or driver of that vehicle (since drivers are responsible for their passenger's actions) who doored him. Let's equate this cars to cars. Passenger Joe opens a door into traffic without looking and a car slams into it. There is absolutely a fault there - Joe is required to check to make sure there are no cars (technically, not to even open the door on the side of traffic) before opening the door. If that caused harm (say the door that the cab hit peeled back and hit someone in another car (I saw that happen on 42nd and 6th Ave a week ago)) something should happen to Joe.

In this case it's not another car but someone on a bike. The act of opening a door without looking caused him to get run over by a truck. The fact that they weren't charged (at the time of reporting anyway, Stacy's link states the driver was issued three summons (big whoop)) sends a message that a driver is not responsible and the language used does in fact make it seem like it was the bicyclist's fault. The lanes on 6th Ave are dangerous - to ride 'four from the door' requires a rider to be in the left hand lane outside of the bike lane.

This was sad but absolutely avoidable. The media's portrayal that it was the victim's fault is sickening.

whatsmyname

It also depends how far the truck was parked from the kerb - just because it was in the space by the hydrant, it doesn't mean it wasn't across the bike line, for instance. Unfortunately, as we've juist seen, we can't rely on the pisspoor reporting for accurate details (or readers to read accurately ).

bac

Sadly, it's really a typical newspaper account of a cycling "accident".

REALITY: Driver opens door into traffic. As a result of his negligence, a cyclist is killed.

NEWSPAPER ACCOUNT: Some damn punk on a bike who should have been on the sidewalk committed suicide today by jumping out in front of a truck. The truck driver was thankfully not injured.

If you are a cyclist, your life means very little to most.

... Brad

DSchlichting

[The Sixth Avenue lane is one of the older, and probably most dangerous, lanes in the City. I remember Koch installed concrete barriers through Herald Square and then wound up pulling them out a few weeks later. I don't remember the reasoning behind that - maybe the lane was too narrow?

I worked in Manhattan during those heady days after the 1980 transit strike. Those lanes took up theleft-most lane of 6th Avenue and were separated from the rest of the roadway by curb-height barriers approximately 12-18 inches wide.
The lanes were rarely cleaned (this was before the bottle bill) and for turning vehicles, traffic in the bike lane was totally off the radar (like this has changed . . .) The lanes were wide enough for a car to park in, and many did. In addition, delivery vehicles parked in the left-most vehicle lane and ran their conveyor systems from the bed of the truck ACROSS the bike lane to the sidewalk at a height of 4-5 feet.

It was a good design in theory, but parking violations where never enforced, and so few cyclists could reliably use it. In addition, there were many more bike messengers in those days. Messengers almost never used the lane and ran roughshod over traffic law in general. The media and the city focused on this, and soon the lanes were gone.

Stacy

The New York Times has a slightly more objective piece on this is today's paper.

Manhattan: Cyclist Killed in Accident

Lucky07

Horrible. How many times have you had to veer into traffic to avoid a passenger door opening into the bike lane? I've done it hundreds of times. I try to look & signal, but that would be almost impossible if you were travelling at any kind of speed.

Here's hoping the cyclist's family raises this with the City, TA, NYPD and anyone else that will listen. A part of me hopes this man's family persues this in civil court, if only to raise awareness.

whatsmyname

This is part of the problem today. NYPD says x,000 citations were given out to cyclists in 200x, and then 10 paragraphs down says 90% of them were to messengers and food delivery guys. I have no problem with the ass being ticketed off these guys, as they're the ones that piss all of them off. I wonder if many of them simply don't actually know what the bike/traffic laws are because they are recent immigrants - perhaps some Spanish/Chinese language flyers would do some good as a "first warning". The native New Yorkers have less of an excuse (although it's up to every road user to find out what the road law is before using it).

KonradNYC

There were 3 violations:
1. parking in front of a hydrant
2. parking in the bike lane
3. open the door into traffic without checking

All 3 of those things are illegal and deserve a summons. At least 2 of those violations resulted in a person's death. Although I don't believe there is such a law, there should be a law which imposes stricter penalties or an additional charge if bike lane violations result in a death (this idea should be extended to pedestrians in crosswalks as well).

As for Streetsblog's bias, well, they are individuals advocating for livable streets, not journalists with a goal of objectivity.

KonradNYC

One more thing...
Anyone whose ever ridden the Sixth Ave bike lane knows how bad it is. You have to constantly veer out of the lane and into traffic in order to get around illegally parked cars. This is particularly dangerous since there is often fast moving traffic just outside the bike lane, and it is difficult to move out far enough away from the door zone without getting run over.

Personally, I just avoid Sixth Ave when I can and prefer to use Eighth Ave instead. Although not perfect, the Eighth Avenue bike lane is a lot better.

Ken Roberts

I suggest reading this book: The Art of Cycling, by Robert Hurst.
Its focus is on city riding. It's creative and witty and insightful. It also includes careful analysis and specific suggestions about how not to get killed riding on the city streets. I thought I knew everything about city riding, but I found some things I hadn't thought of before.

Even if you know everything already, it's still worth reading so that you can know how to recommend it to other riders.
My chain of reasoning:
1. That observation shows that the government cannot be relied upon to assure my safe riding on the streets.

2a. It's good to work to try to get the City to do better, but ...
2b. Smart dedicated people have been trying this approach for a long time, and there's still some big gaps -- unlikely to be closed in the next few years.

3a. "Not getting killed" is something very very important to me (and to Sharon).
3b. The knowledge that Sharon and some friendly BikeForums riders will be morally entitled to send out messages blaming the City and/or some car-driver after I've gotten killed is not sufficient for me. Therefore ...

4a. I need to put in my own time + effort to gain my own knowledge and street-riding strategies and skills, sufficient to reduce the risk of my getting killed to an acceptable level.
4b. I already needed to put in substantial time + effort to learn strategies + skills for "not getting killed" while driving my car on roads + streets. Perhaps not unreasonable to put in a similar amount also for riding my bike. (I also skate on the streets sometimes, including the major Avenues + Broadway)

5a. Since the risks of riding a bicycle on city streets have been well-known for sevaral decades ... Instead of trying to figure this all out from scratch, I should first check if some really smart people have already worked on the problem.
5b. Discovery: Several really smart people indeed have worked on it -- and carefully communicated their findings. In addition to crucial advice like, "If we know the 6th Ave bike lane is unsafe even though the City says it's OK, then how about try riding on 8th Ave", at least three smart riders have written whole books full of good (often non-intuitive) ideas for safer riding.

6a. A book about a complicated problem like riding on the streets could take significant time to read and carefully digest and work out the implications for my riding.
6b. A book costs money ... like The Art of Cycling cost me US$ 15.00

7. For me, "not getting killed" is worth $15.00.Ken

Marrock

From the county DOT website where I live: "Having the legal right of way doesn't protect you from careless drivers."

sukram

Like a lot of other people, I commute to work in NYC, and unfortunately, this is another sad example of an incident that could have been avoided. I really don't know what to say, the truck was parked illegally (bike lane and hydrant), the passenger opened his door into traffic unsafely... someone died. Nothing can change that, sadly, the guy is gone now.

Some accidents are truly accidents, something you can't avoid (rockslide, flying deer...). However, if you do something illegal that endangers lives (parking in a bike lane, parking in front of a hydrant for instance), I don't know how that can be considered an accident, it's more like reckless endangerment. I'm not a lawyer, so maybe it could fall under some other name, but I don't think this is just an accident. The stage was set for trouble, and the driver knew it when he parked there.

I'm not naive enough (as much as I try sometimes) to think the goverment can suddenly change everyone's behavior, but I think they can make a start.

That said, I ride about as defensively as any Fred does, and often right in the middle of the lane when warranted. Horns be damned, it's my street too.

Stacy

Whatever the penalty might be for blocking a bike lane or opening the passenger side door into traffic, it should be considerably more severe when someone dies as a result of these actions.

Marrock

Make an example of this one and it might make the next one think first before doing the same... that's the theory anyway.

Bacciagalupe

Uh, so now pedestrians should be held legally responsible if a bike gets into an accident? o_O Now do you see why bias can cause problems?

Again: fatalities in NYC's bike lanes are exceedingly rare. Most of the accidents are happening at intersections, where there is already plenty of legislation to determine right of way. I really do not see how an extra law could have possibly prevented this accident. (You might also want to read the PDF on "Bicyclist Fatalities and Injuries in NYC" that I linked to earlier before proposing more legislation....)

Now I don't know about you, but if I'm on 6th Avenue, traffic is heavy, and there's a car parked in the bike lane, I'm still not going to zoom past it in the "door zone." Anything less than about 4 feet away from parked cars is unsafe, no matter how you slice it. Cyclists should assume that cars can't see them or don't notice them. And while not a panacea, if I am not wearing a helmet and get into an accident, I have no one but myself to blame if I wind up with a severe head injury.

This is not to say "this particular cyclist was exclusively at fault." But ultimately a cyclist, even one who is riding in a 100% legal manner, is largely responsible for their own safety.



I don't assume it's a formal journalistic outlet; but excessive bias is excessive bias -- and IMO it affects their credibility on enough issues that I ultimately do not find Streetsblog worth reading.

Air

So any car that feels like going in the bike lane has every right to attempt to mangle or kill a bicyclist without retribution because the cyclist shouldn't have been in the bike lane in the first place. Gotcha.

Bacciagalupe

I'd appreciate it if you refrained from intentionally mischaractering my position and the event.

I explicitly said I was not blaming the cyclist. Absolutely no one is suggesting anything about this event was intentional. I have no idea how or why you are conflating any of this with the legitimization of homicide; I assure you, it is not doing your position much good.

Rather than "bikes do not belong in the bike lane," I'm pointing out that bike lanes are generally safe and no matter what, you need to stay about 4 feet away from parked cars. Period. No matter how you try to cast the issue, even if the car is absolutely and unquestionably in the wrong spot and ought to be watching for you, the reality is that you cannot count on the driver to look. I.e., it simply is not safe to ride in the "door zone."

Is that really such a hard concept to grasp?

I, for one, am more interested in "justice" than in "retribution." If I miss throwing a banana peel into the trash, and someone winds up slipping on it, fracturing their skull and dying, should I be thrown in jail? Should we pass a law that littering will get you 5 years in the slammer?

It was an accident with shared responsibility. The driver was careless; the cyclist was careless. It's very sad, but hardly a reason to demonize either individual, pass new legislation or engage in criminal proceedings.

tomg

sad to hear about the bicyclist. condolences to his family and friends...

i have a question though about several aspects of this incident, that apparantly, and not suprisingly, was reported as it was in this car friendly nation.

1) how can a bicyclist/person be hit riding with traffic (vb) by someone exiting the passenger side of a vehicle? isn't a curb/sidewalk on the passenger side of a vehicle?

2) was this a oneway road with bike lane (BL) on the wrong side (left)? why would a BL be set on the left side when slower traffic, by law, is to drive (VB) as far to the right as safe, pending going straight or turning left?

3) are laws different in NYC?

these are a few questions i have for clarity of this posting. again i feel for the bicyclist/family.

thanks for the refocus in advance.

tomg

stevesurf

Forgive me if I misinterpret what you are trying to say here, but I believe you are hereby legitimizing anyone that chooses to fling a door open at will, without even looking in their mirror for a blinking front light, which most cyclists don't even have anyway.

Stay the 4 feet away from a parked car and you are in a driving lane and will often be obstructing traffic. In NYC, one driving behavior is to speed up behind a slow moving vehicle, only to cut back to the faster moving lane, which can often lead to (I hope noone experiences this) clipping the slow moving vehicle or rider.

Cyclists will find themselves "in the door zone" many times during a typical ride in a major city that does not have wide bike lanes and a buffer, like NYC.

Now if you are saying that cyclists and cars don't mix, I am in full agreement as a person that was once hit and had to go to a hospital because of that. If you are saying that the cyclist has the primary responsibility to avoid the door, I wholehartedly disagree. There is a joint responsibility to cycle at a reasonable speed, together with the driver taking care that they will not strike a pedestrian, cyclist or other vehicle by opening their door.