radiofree

I definitely would have rode the sidewalk across that bridge, as others have said. It sounds like a terrible accident, but to call it murder? Did the man who was driving not show any remorse or something?

ghettocruiser

Based on the squealing of tires behind me, I apparently have done this *trick*.

The key to the *trick* is that the audience, in this case the driver approaching from behind, isn't watching the road, is going too fast for conditions, or both.

But it seems that to admit that cyclists get hit from behind while occupying a traffic lane violates a VC code of conduct or something.

Blue Jays

I'm thinking about traveling from Massachusetts to Florida on I-95 and taking the lane the whole way. Watch for me during the 11:00 o'clock news when they report on VC roadway fatalities. I'm a vehicle, darn it!

Gus Riley

See post #123 for an excellent work-up to suddenly appearing in front of someone. Thanks Mike, we all experience the same phenomenon that you so aptly describe.

Blue Order

GC, we seem to be entering a new era of common agreement!

ghettocruiser

(slightly) stranger things have happened.

dobber

That's interesting, to me it sounded more like he was juggling kittens and chainsaws while riding one handed dressed in a ninja black suit while the auto driver was driving at a snails pace due to the freak sandstorm.

We're all sitting here typing our suppositions and assigning blames based on a few scant lines of newsprint.

musician

looking at the pics of the bridge roadway, i'd say the cyclist should have taken the sidewalk.

i'm curious what laws (KY or IN, or elsewhere) have to say about using bridge sidewalks, or sidewalks in other spots where the road is too narrow (or whatever) to ride safely.

here's a bit from the Rides section of my LBS website, from a route for a ride that crosses a river on a bridge: "Note: We ride the sidewalk on the bridge it is the only safe way over but be aware of glass"

i'd say, laws and glass be damned, i'm riding on the sidewalk if the alternative is to ride in a street that you cannot bail out from (due to really high curbs, narrow lanes), and that has high-speed traffic (how fast do you think they go on this bridge?)

what a tragic loss of life! i'm really sad to hear of this.

filtersweep

Sorry, but get real. Accidents by definition are unforeseen and unpredictable. This situation is preventable at so many levels--- but most significantly, the driver was obviously not focusing on where he was driving. If you do not focus on where you are driving, an accident suddenly becomes a foreseeable consequence.

It pretty much IS legalized manslaughter to run down a cyclist and claim you didn't see him or her. The US is very reluctant to criminalize vehicular infractions... as also evidenced by the many multiple DUI offenders (that are still on the road).

evblazer

DUI's not being given the death penalty aside unless someone has a link to a video of how exactly the accident happens we don't know for sure the vehicle driver wasn't paying attention. Yes if everyone, EVERYONE, was following textbook rules from drivers ed while paying full attention and obeying absolutely every traffic law there way and had no difficulties or problems with there vehicles or the environment around them then you could call it legalized manslaughter.
When your taking the lane and see a vehicle coming up beside you in your rear view mirror, I mean you do have one of those don't you?, do you hold the lane in the face of a vehicle that may not see you or may not care to see you or do you get out of the way? On this road there is zero exit strategy which if I ever encountered a road from now on with any sort of traffic i'd probably take that sidewalk without hesitation even if it meant I walked it.

Blue Order

Normally, I'd agree with you, because I take issue with the kind of BFer who inserts his own set of facts into a factless scenario to support his pre-determined conclusion. But in this case, I really don't think it's hard to figure out-- the cyclist was either hugging the curb, or he was taking the lane. We know this much from the news account. So which was it-- was he hugging the curb? Or taking the lane? Because the driver said he didn't see him until it was too late, and he was "too close" to stop, it seems pretty clear that the cyclist was taking the lane. Could he have been hugging the curb? Yes, but the admittedly limited information we have from the driver provides more support for a reading that the cyclist was taking the lane than for a reading that the cyclist was hugging the curb.

On the other hand, does the admittedly limited information support a reading that the cyclist was on the sidewalk when he was hit? Absolutely not.

Blue Order

*If* the cyclist was taking the lane-- and I believe the evidence indicates he was taking the lane-- then there are only two possible explanations for this incident: The driver was not paying attention, or the driver intended to hit him. I would suggest it was the former.

joejack951

I didn't realize that there were two articles. The one I read was very vague about the details of the accident. The other was much clearer and describes exactly what you have described. Thanks for pointing that out.

I'm not sure how you explain him hitting the steel girder which is on the sidewalk by a good foot if he was directly in front of the motorist. Where did the momentum in that direction come from? It would seem to me that the cyclist was hit with a glancing blow by the van and thrown to the side. In order for that to happen 1. the cyclist had to be hugging the curb, 2. the van driver had to swerve into the opposite lane trying to avoid the cyclist, or 3. the cyclist had to swerve right in the instant before the impact. Neither 2 or 3 was mentioned in the article.

Where did you come up with that 65mph number? I didn't see any reference to this driver's speed. 35mph is quite a low speed limit especially on a multilane roadway with perfect sightlines such as those on a bridge. Taking the lane on this bridge would mean that I would need to be confident that faster traffic would see me in time to react to my presence just like a cyclist needs to do any time the outside lane is not wide enough to share. I don't see why this situation being a bridge with more than one lane makes any difference. Why would I be harassed for the entire length of the bridge when there is a passing lane? Do you ever ride any multilane roads? It takes an incredible amount of traffic for a cyclist to cause any significant delay to motorists (and yes, I've cycled in that amount of traffic).

The narrow pathway on the side of that bridge due to the girders coupled with the very good chance that it would be filled with debris would be plenty reason for me to ride in the traffic lane. This cyclist made a mistake by hugging the curb and not being seen in time or swerving left and being hit or he did indeed fall victim to the very unlikely chance that someone would completely miss a full size person in the middle of their lane travelling in the same direction as them. If the last part is true, I'll take note of it but it will hardly affect how I ride. I ride enough roads where there is no other option but to use the right hand lane for traffic and given the very unlikely chance of something happening to me, I'm not about to stop riding them. Perpetuating the myth that riding in the same lane as traffic is a death wish and should always be avoided when at all possible is quite counterproductive to cyclist advocacy.

joejack951

Care to give any more details about your incidents? Your lane position, approximate driver's speed, lighting conditions, etc.?

I have no issue with admitting that a cyclist could get hit while occupying a traffic lane. It happens quite often but given how most cyclists ride, it's not that surprising. Allowing motorists to squeeze by in a lane too narrow to share by riding near the edge is an accident waiting to happen.

If the driver is this story truly was not paying attention to the road right in front of her, how did she even manage to stay going straight enough to get over that bridge? That lane width does not allow for much drifting off center before you hit the curb of someone next to you.

Blue Order

I really don't know, except that he wasn't seen until it was too late, and he was thrown into the girder.

The OP mentioned it in one of his posts. Yes, 35 is a slow speed, and apparently it's ignored by drivers.

But we all know that when drivers see us in the lane, they react with harassment when they could easily pass us. Put cars in both lanes, and the lanes become even more hazardous for cyclists.

We'll have to disagree on that one. In fact, I would argue that needlessly taking the lane *when it impedes faster-moving vehicles* is quite counterproductive to cycling advocacy.

joejack951

Ok, but earlier you were converging on the idea that he must have been centered in the lane:

I had remembered "55" being the number. I just checked and he said 55-60. We were both a bit off. Either way, that's not an excessive speed given the sightlines.

Actually, in my experience, the majority of drivers, even when they can't change lanes immediately, don't seem to care that I'm in the lane. If there's an open lane to their left, most change into it well before they get anywhere near me (keep in mind, I'm in the middle of the lane). Worst case, a driver in the right lane slows to my speed for a little while until traffic clears in the left lane, he honks a few times, then passes on my left, maybe dragging his right tires a foot into my lane. This is my daily commute.

Your definition of impeding is quite different than mine and that of the law's. You cannot be ticketted for impeding traffic when using the right hand lane of a multilane roadway assuming there is no minimum posted speed limit (and there isn't one ever on any surface street including that bridge). By your definition of impeding traffic, a cyclist should never trip a traffic light to cross a major road otherwise he'll be causing traffic to needlessly slow for his lowly self.

Blue Order

No, I still believe that he was taking the lane, rather than hugging the curb. It's just that when we start hypothesizing more about exactly where he was positioned and all of that that I have to back off, because I don't have enough data.

Right, the majority of drivers adjust. A dangerous minority of drivers decide to enforce whatever they think the law is. I've had worse than dragging a tire into the lane-- one driver passed between lanes; I was in the right lane, a car was in the center lane, and the driver who passed me passed between me and the car to my left, between lanes. And for no other reason than to express her anger that I was in the lane-- she could have just passed in the center lane, but didn't.

I am more aware of the law's definition than you realize. I wasn't speaking in the Trotwood v. Selz sense of "impeding." I was speaking in the sense of a slower vehicle preventing a faster vehicle from proceeding. There's nothing illegal about that if the slower vehicle is moving as fast as it can, but if the slower vehicle has other options, but chooses not to exercise them, that is rude. And according to the Trotwood court, Selz would have been convicted if he had been charged with not riding as far to the right as practicable. In this case, practicable means center of the lane, as far as I'm concerned. But polite means the sidewalk.

Dahon.Steve

Agreed.

The ped/bike path (sidewalk) was wide enough to cycle on easily. I'm faily certain it is assumed those not using motor transport will use the path because the actual road looks restricted and dangerous. Most bridges are empty of walkers so if you want, there shouldn't be any reason why you could not do 18 mph or more on that path.

Why the man who was killed wanted a bike sign to ride with the high speed traffic when you have that large ped/bike path is beyond me. I hope the city officials put restricted signs forcing the cyclists to use the ped/bike path saving the lives of future cyclists.

Trek Al

One strange thread

joejack951

Got it.

I've had that happen once by being too far right in the lane. It's incredible what a foot to the left can do.

I'm not speaking in the Trotwood v. Selz sense either. Actually, I completely disagree with the argument used in that case. I also disagree with the lawyer's comment that the cyclist could have been charged with not riding as far right as practible if he had been ticketted for that instead of impeding traffic. The cyclist was in a narrow lane that could not be shared with a motor vehicle so the far right rule is irrelevant. What's relevant is whether or not the cyclist was impeding traffic. Delaware's (and many other states) have a law that reads like this:

Note that impeding traffic can only occur on a 2 lane highway. And it applies to ALL vehicle types. I would expect to get a ticket if I uselessly impeded traffic on a 2 lane highway by not turning off onto a useable shoulder no matter what vehicle I was using. A piece of farm machinery is a motor vehicle which cannot go the speed of traffic on most roads so laws such as this one do not apply: "No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law." But that piece of farm machinery can certainly impede the flow of traffic per the previously quoted law. It does not matter that the piece of farm machinery is going as fast as it can.

On roads with a passing lane, there is nothing but other same direction traffic keeping someone from getting around a slow moving vehicle. All they need to do is change lanes and they can pass. That is different than having to find a gap in oncoming traffic plus a safe sightline in order to pass.

If you've noticed prior to this thread, I couldn't care less about being "polite" (as defined by someone else) if it means reducing my own safety. I'll use a shoulder to let faster traffic pass well before 5 vehicles back up behind me assuming that shoulder is wide enough and free of debris. I will not use a narrow sidewalk with a short handrail on one side and steel girders on the other to avoid slowing someone down for a few seconds.

joejack951

You think it's safe to ride at normal cycling speed (or on a bike at any speed) on this sidewalk?

https://cmsimg.courier-journal.com/ap...xW=500&title=1

Blue Order

Believe me, I had already moved to left of center in order to prevent any attempts to share my lane, because one driver had already "shared my lane". The driver who passed me decided to teach me a lesson. The lesson apparently was that I've got to work on my sprints if I hope to catch them at the next light.

(It was actually the court that said that)

And that's all I'm saying we should do as a matter of courtesy. In your case, it's also a matter of law.

I won't compromise my safety either, but I don't think it's always a zero-sum game. When it's not a zero sum game, courtesy should also apply. And in the case of this bridge, not only is it not a zero sum game, it's (I think) demonstrably safer to ride on the sidewalk, and not in the traffic lanes.

Gus Riley

At my speed...yes. There is plenty of room by the looks of it. We don't drift that far off line even on the triplet.

joejack951

Sounds like a real JAM.

Really? It's pretty standard wording for "far right" laws to make a written exemption for when the lane isn't wide enough to share. I would hope the courts would be well aware of that.

So really, the only difference in our attitudes is what constitutes a zero-sum in terms of safety on roadways. I don't use shoulders when I don't have to but when I can reasonably determine that my safety won't be affected by riding for a brief period in them, I have no problems using the shoulder. I wouldn't consider a narrow bridge sidewalk a safer option than a wide (for a single bicycle to travel in) traffic lane. But, if I had to choose between curb hugging and the sidewalk (hypothetical gun to my head), I'd walk on the sidewalk.

joejack951

I don't intend to drift that far either but the bridge is a mile long and the choices for falling if something goes wrong are into a traffic lane unexpectedly or possible off the side of the bridge. Call me a wuss