littlewaywelt

I had several thousand posts on the backpacker website and participated for many years. It's posts like the cyclists are no better than dogs and the general nature of the "Trailhead Register" that caused me to leave. TR is full of individuals R and L espousing hate, anger and intollerance. The arguments there rarely contain logic.

littlewaywelt

Murder requires intent.
It's highly unlikely that the driver intended to kill the cyclist.

Denny Koll

We should be proud of the dead cyclist. He stood up for our rights to ride on the roads. He could have easily wimped out and taken the sidewalk but that would have been giving in to the drivers. If we all could find dangerous roads to ride on and a lot of us would get killed it will help bring attention to cyclists rights to the road. We need to take the lane and make a statement.

Gus Riley

I was thinking the same thing. If that was the case, I recall an incident a day before RAGBRAI 2000 or 2001 when a rider got too far right. He caught a pedal on the curb which threw him instantly into the path of the vehicles he was making room for. Unfortunately for him and the cager the vehicle was a semi. Except giving a whole lane width clearance before passing there wasn't much the cager could do. Of course in this case hindsight is 20/20 in the cager's case, but in his mind "the rider DID show intentions that he was making room and must have been okay with an attempted pass".

Good reason to take the lane or get up on the sidewalk. Decisions, decisions...

Blue Jays

Taking the lane in this specific example would likely rile quite a few motorists and invite additional problems. For those saying the delay amounts to only five minutes following the cyclist....that is only if a SINGLE cyclist is present. What happens if there are ten cyclists and they're separated by a quarter-mile between them? Based on the number of people who must use roadways around our nation, vehicles traveling 15 m.p.h. can't dictate policy all the time. That is the same reason we don't have horsedrawn carts on many roadways.

The wise decision in this situation would have been to *break the law* and ride on the sidewalk. No police officers would even blink an eye. The investigation into the cause/fault of the accident must continue until a resolution is reached.

jomalley

I was going to reply, but then I saw it's already 5 pages long.

Blue Jays

jomalley, go ahead, it will still be five pages long with your next reply.

rando

after you.

Blue Jays

I'm thinking about dying a week from next Tuesday in support of cyclists' rights by riding on a 65 m.p.h. highway near my home and taking the lane. It's the least I can do.

rando

I'd like to die for cyclist's rights but I want to make sure I die instantly and don't linger. maybe if I take the lane right in front of a speeding Semi.

joejack951

How often do you ride multilaned roads with a narrow outside lane? If you rode them with any frequency, you'd realize that the delays caused by a slow moving vehicle (a cyclist in this case) are so minimal as to not even be worth mentioning. Any slight delays that are caused are usually the fault of motorists who are more concerned with getting a chance to honk at a cyclist than just changing lanes and passing them (kinda makes it tough for someone to argue that they are in a hurry when they waste 30 seconds honking and yelling instead of just moving over). With more cyclists, that just means that every vehicle that passed on the left needs to stay there a little longer. Remember, we're only talking a mile long stretch of roadway here. Since when is someone's commute to work an emergency anyway?

I have to laugh at your horsedrawn cart comment. Do you really think that faster traffic flow is the reason people don't get around by horse and cart any more? I hope not.

If a cyclist was not comfortable taking a lane on the bridge, riding the sidewalk would be preferable to trying to ride the right edge of the traffic lane. With few pedestrians and zero intersections, the risks are low (although certainly not zero). Using the full lane while on a bicycle to cross that bridge is no less dangerous than doing the same thing on a normal road and anyone who has experience cycling on such roads knows that they can be quite pleasant and safe to ride on (arguably more so than narrow, winding single lane country roads that all the roadies love).

Also, for a cyclist towing a trailer making their vehicle too wide to use the sidewalk, what would you suggest they do?

Blue Jays

joejack951, a cyclist who couldn't navigate that very wide sidewalk even while pulling a trailer would be incompetent. I'm not telling you where to ride, go wherever you please. Make certain your insurance is updated, too.

joejack951

Do you know what the entire sidewalk looks like?

Any more comments about my post aside from your trite insurance remark?

Blue Jays

One should not haul bicycle trailers if not confident about the terrain they will encounter. Challenging areas may require dismounting. The sidewalk on that particular bridge can accomodate riders and gear.

joejack951

I'm 100% confident that I could haul my trailer over the "terrain" in the traffic lane over that bridge without ever laying eyes on it. Not so with the sidewalk. What was your point?

Blue Jays

The point is that a cyclist must choose the safest method by which to travel from Point A to Point B and arrive in one piece. Those decisions often need to be made instantly. This bridge is over a mile in length, with narrow lanes, fast traffic, joined to a wide and inviting sidewalk separated by a curb. Conventional wisdom indicates that the sidewalk would likely be the safest choice for cyclists concerned with their health and welfare.

I-Like-To-Bike

Perhaps like the unfortunately misplaced 100% confidence of the bicyclist victim we read about in the OP.

Sandwarrior

Having read the news article, it says the rider hit a steel support girder, but she doesn't say if he was on the road or the sidewalk. Since her number is posted in the article, did anyone call her to get further details? I could understand the drivers side, if for instance, the rider was on the sidewalk, hit the girder and was thrown into traffic. He would have had no time to react if the poor guy came flying out from between girgers right in front of him.

joejack951

The article isn't clear as to whether the cyclist hit the girder first then was hit or if he hit the girder as a result of being thrown from his bike. If he hit the girder first, they sure all look to me to be on the sidewalk and not in the right lane. I agree with your last statement.

joejack951

Right, like the same conventional wisdom that says helmets will protect you in an accident with an automobile (this guy did have a helmet on as the article states) or that riding against traffic so that you can see what's happening is the best way. That sidewalk looks wide enough for a single cyclist to use at maybe jogging speed. My health and welfare would be doing just fine in the right hand lane moving at a pace that won't make me question why I even have a bike with me instead of dodging steel girders on the sidewalk.

Blue Order

You say that as if the cyclist who was killed wasn't following that same line of thinking.

I dunno, maybe you're invincible, and he wasn't. Maybe that's the difference.

joejack951

After reading the article, it sure sounds like he was on the sidewalk and fell into the right hand lane. In all my time spent cycling in narrow traffic lanes, I've never managed to pull off the trick of suddenly appearing in front of someone. Unless this guy was hugging the curb and suddenly swerved left, as I was speculating earlier, there's no way he just appeared in the right hand lane either unless he came off the sidewalk.

mike

I agree, MrCjolsen. Traffic speed does make a difference relative to safety. I ride on 55 mph roads sometimes when touring, but I am going maybe 23 mph at best. Unexpectedly, traffic can become intense. I see and feel the cars behind me swerve to avoid me. Each car gets closer and closer as the car in front of them swerves to reveal me, the bicyclist directly in front of them at a relative stand-still. I think that it is only a short matter of time before a sleepy or distracted driver does not see me in time to react and I get rear-ended.

I hate that feeling and always get off to the shoulder or find some way to keep from being part of a tragic article in a newspaper about a cyclist who got hit by a car.

Blue Order

I just re-read the article. Here's what we know:

1) He was riding in the southbound right hand lane.
2) The driver didn't see him until it was too late.
3) He was "too close" to avoid.
4) He was thrown from his bike and hit a steel girder.

From that description, it sounds like he was either hugging the right curb in a lane that is too narrow to safely share, or he was taking the lane. From the article, it sounds more like he was taking the lane, as you advocate for this bridge.

Now I know you subscribe to VC, so I imagine you would just take the lane, consistent with VC practice. Most cyclists wouldn't. That bridge is over one mile long, with two narrow lanes in each direction, and posted speed limits of 35 MPH, and actual speed limits of 65 MPH. Taking the lane on this bridge means that you would have to be confident that you would be seen by a motorist traveling at those speeds, regardless of whatever else the motorist might happen to be doing at that moment, and it means that you would be comfortable with being harassed the entire length of your bridge ride.

And in fact, it appears that this cyclist did take the lane, and in fact wasn't seen until it was "too late."

I suspect that most cyclists aren't confident that they will be seen, and most cyclists aren't comfortable placing themselves in situations where they know they'll be harassed, especially when there's a safe and harassment free option a few feet to the right.

Blue Jays

Blue Order, excellent encapsulation and voice of reason. Thank you.