megaman

What do you think of this?




https://www.lacrossetribune.com/artic...ws/1news25.txt

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!

chemcycle

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...........

Dchiefransom

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.

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?

randya

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

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

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...

twahl

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

Oh boy... here we go again. I think I'll go pop some popcorn and sit back to watch the fireworks.

Brillig

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

From Leauge of American Bicyclists
https://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

Sounds like there are plenty of anti-cycling trolls right here on this board.

randya

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

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.

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:

https://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...