Anchorage wreck - any news?
 

Saw a footer blurb that there was a bike fatality on Tudor and C last night at 12:15 AM, but I can't seem to find any news about it. Has anyone seen anything?

Update - found something.
http://www.ktuu.com/news/ktuu-fatal-...,3378199.story

There's a link in the article to an Endomondo page that appears to show his route (updated real time?) during his ride. I thought he was a salmon until I checked out the area closer. There appear to be (poorly designed) bike paths along C St.

It also looks like a busy intersection with fast-moving traffic. Ugh. Not an ideal area.

My condolences to his family.

Looks like he got hit in the crosswalk. RIP. From the description and workout log he was heading toward the right side of C street from Tudor road.

I've seen drivers (25%) not looking right when making a right turn with green light (walk) so many times and actually caught myself doing it too, since you rarely see any pedestrians (bikes) in winter.

One thing I don't get is how she drove 60feet before stopping. Or why the cops didn't cite her for negligence since she obviously didn't look before making the right turn.

The amount of disclaimering of the motorist in the article was mindboggling. The word 'accident' was massively overused, then the bit about how he was well lit up and it must have been an 'unfortunate turn of events'..

"Accident"--high speed---drug 60 feet--in a crosswalk--no ticket yet. Same old BS killing a cyclist is no big deal!!!

Sometimes I get angry reading about this stuff. My one consolation is that they are killing themselves and other drivers at a much quicker rate.

If 'poetic justice' existed, the bike-killers would be plowed by a drunk driver crossing the centerline. The DAY AFTER receiving no ticket or fine.

Okay, let's break this down: 60 feet is only 3-4 car lengths. That's pretty much jamming on the brakes, especially if you take into account human reaction time.

Well, the story is that she was making a right turn so must have been going relatively slow < 20mph. And if the crash occurred in the crosswalk then she didn't register or panicked for several seconds while dragging the cyclist.

Supposedly they are still investigating, but I doubt anything will happen even if she is found to be at 100% fault. Just recently in Fairbanks a Preacher who ran a red light and killed a Motorcyclist ("real road user") got 100 days of home confinement instead of the typical 2-5 years for negligent manslaughter.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.g.../dg_070681.gif

http://www.adn.com/2011/04/12/180696...e-tribute.html

I still can't figure out exactly where the cyclist was when he got hit. Everything I see says "in the crosswalk". But - please bear with me, I can't figure out if the cyclist was crossing legally in the cross walk the driver drove across when she turned right, or if the cyclist was crossing illegally, against the light and the driver hit him before/as she was turning right.

I looked at the route map and see:

Cyclist traveling west to east on Tudor Road (or maybe on one of the sidewalks on either side?)

Driver approaches Tudor Road on C Street from the north (heading south)

Driver turns right w/ light - after the right turn, the driver is now going west on Tudor.

Was the cyclist in the Tudor Road cross walk on the western side of this intersection, or in the C Street Cross walk on the northern side of the intersection?

The reason I ask is that I don't understand why the cyclist would be in the Tudor Road crosswalk if he was riding west to east on that same street? I guess it might make sense if he were approaching C street either on the south side sidewalk or adjacent right lane and then took a sharp left into the cross walk to begin heading down the C street sidewalk northward? This seems to make the most sense and in which case the driver is totally at fault since they both have a green light. However, it would be a good example why crosswalks and sidewalks can be deadly dangerous for cyclists - they set up situations like this where it doesn't matter who's at fault, it's just designed for failure.

On the other hand, if the cyclist was actually riding west to east on the sidewalk along the north side of Tudor road rather than Tudor road itself, it is conceivable that he then attempted to take the crosswalk across C street continuing eastward, and had the misfortune of getting hit by the car. This is kind of what it looks for on the linked route map, (that he was on the north side sidewalk), but I have no idea how accurate those mapping programs are.

Again, I am just trying to figure out what happened in this tragic event, maybe to understand if I should be pissed at the driver or feel sorry for her. I feel sorry for the guy and his family and loved ones regardless.

For all of you knee-jerk blame the driver non-thinkers, well, you should actually keep your mouths shut sometimes when you have no idea what the facts are: http://www.adn.com/2011/04/22/182374...#disqus_thread

Driving against traffic, entered an intersection against a red light, got hit by a motorist driving carefully. I'm waiting to hear some of you figure out some way to blame the motorist anyway. Go for it.

Rip to the cyclist, and my sincere sympathy to poor driver who has to live with a death she probably couldn't have avoided.

That's an oxymoron...

Cager chooses to operate the more dangerous vehicle by far ergo cager carries much higher burden of responsibility for consequences of choosing a highly dangerous mode of transport, cager must shoulder the burden by default.


The cager could definitely have avoided the CARnage if she chose an environmentally responsible, safe, healthy transport option such as cycling, instead she decided that raping the earth's resources, polluting everyone's air, and destroying the environment are a small price to pay for her selfish convenience.

This may be so, but nonetheless, being a headspaced salmon isn't going to cut it wen it comes to being safe and predictable.