"Bike Friendly Community" signs all over town doesn't mean it's so. Terrible loss.
 

As a bike lover who is expecting my fifth child as well, this hits way too close to home. Be careful, folks.

http://www.10tv.com/live/content/loc...-in-crash.html

When are drivers going to get it that they have to PAY ATTENTION when they are behind the wheel?

"I heard a thump," Jackson said. "As soon as I saw I hit someone or something, I immediately stopped." Really? What the F were you doing just before you "heard a thump"?

"I heard a thump", some motorists need not be behind the steering wheel of a car.

I know, it's terrifying. Think of all the lives that guy has changed forever. And why didn't he block her from oncoming traffic while he called 911???!!!!! She'd probably be fine if he had. This is why I can't bring myself to make the leap into vehicular cycling.

Not to turn this into a VC thread, but you don't know where she was in the lane. If she was riding "gutter bunny", it pretty much invites passing without changing lanes. VC is about controlling the lane- i.e., remove any ambiguity in a driver's mind as to whether an approaching driver needs to change lanes to pass a cyclist.

Whenever I ride through a neighborhood with "drug free zone" signs, I think that if anyone ever asks me where they can get drugs, I should send them here. Bike friendly zone signs probably have the same meaning: we've had a problem with this, so let's try and change that.

Doohickie, you have a fair point. They don't specify, but I do know the area of town, and it is a major thoroughfare where attempting to squeeze to the side isn't really an option on most stretches. Imagine a four lane road lined with strip malls and you'll get the idea. I applaud everyone who does brave the VC world as I view all of them as intrepid pioneers for the rest of us who are too afraid of drivers' ineptitude. This is our town's second fatality (that I know of) in just a few months, and while we can't be sure about the cyclist in this circumstance, the last was a daily commuter practically dressed in reflective tape and doing everything right. Around here, people get bullied for claiming the lane.

I agree. There are many reasons why vehicular cycling doesn't work except for a small minority. Most bike users simple do not feel comfortable taking the lane and for very good reasons. A bike is slower and much more vulnerable then a motor vehicle. Asking someone on a 20 or 30 lb. bike to take the lane with 2000+ lb. motor vehicles traveling at higher speeds is foolish. The subjective safety level is very low. It works fine in slow moving residential areas, but not feeder and arterial roads. One bad driver and it's a disaster.

You will never advance the cause of bike commuting and get more people on bikes by pushing the idea of vehicular cycling. We need our own protected bike paths, and where that is not possible traffic has to be slowed down.

Will those protected bike paths go everywhere that cyclists want/need to go? Here in St. Pete/Pinellas County we have the Pinellas Trail that pretty much goes from one end of the county to the other. BUT it does NOT go everywhere that we want/need to go.

As an example, when I am going out to the VA I take 1st N. south to 30th Ave. N. Than I take 30th Ave. N. west to the Tyrone Mall area where I am able to hop onto the Pinellas Trail. That is also the only section of the trail that I use or goes where I want/need to go.

Also how is the city/county/state suppose to secure the property to build these protected paths? Property owners are not going to want to give up part of their property, and using imminent domain to seize the property is just going to piss them off.

As has been said before within city limits we need to slow down the speed of the roads, we also need to have those speed limits strictly enforced. And motorists need to be encouraged to car pool, use public transportation (demand more public transportation) and ride bicycles.

As it is because there are still so few of us on the road on bikes we are seen as someone that drivers can ignore.

Which driver "dragged her 30 or 40 feet"? I assume not the first or he wouldn't have stopped (or said he only "heard a thump") was it the 3rd guy who drove off?

" And why didn't he block her from oncoming traffic while he called 911???!!!!!"
He probably pulled over, then what, you mean stand in the middle of the road? Given what happened to her, I think standing in the middle of the road trying to wave cars to the side might have worked, or we might have two bodies, especially since the 3rd driver dragged her 30 or 40 feet and drove off. (I'm assuming the driver that dragged her was not one of the two that stopped, though the article doesn't specify).

The driver that started the chain reaction could have used his car to protect the woman that he hit.

The city/county/state actually owns lots of property. No additional land needs to be purchased. Plenty enough for bikes, and it goes everywhere. It's just that as of now the vast majority is being used to move motor vehicles instead of bikes. If we took 15% of that and used it for protected cycle tracks, along with slowing down traffic on a number of other streets, we could have a top notch bike infrastructure without spending outrageous amounts of money.

I actually read all the comments...unfortunately. It's easy to get sucked in.

According to a comment from someone who claims to have seen her ride off that night, she was wearing "light-colored clothing" and had a red bandanna attached to part of the bike. No mention of lights, which would possibly make this (legally) the cyclist's fault. According to the wording of the following quote, I believe a taillight is mandatory in Ohio.

"§ 4511.56. Bicycle signal devices.
(A) Every bicycle when in use at the times specified in section 4513.03 of the Revised Code, shall be equipped with the following:
(1) A lamp mounted on the front of either the bicycle or the operator that shall emit a white light visible from a distance of at least five hundred feet to the front and three hundred feet to the sides. A generator-powered lamp that emits light only when the bicycle is moving may be used to meet this requirement.
(2) A red reflector on the rear that shall be visible from all distances from one hundred feet to six hundred feet to the rear when directly in front of lawful lower beams of head lamps on a motor vehicle;
(3) A lamp emitting either flashing or steady red light visible from a distance of five hundred feet to the rear shall be used in addition to the red reflector. If the red lamp performs as a reflector in that it is visible as specified in division (A)(2) of this section, the red lamp may serve as the reflector and a separate reflector is not required."

This conversation is an aside to the larger one...

This "bike paths will not go everywhere" argument is completely false. Did you read the post you responded to? "It works fine in slow moving residential areas, but not feeder and arterial roads." The writer of that post only needs bike paths for some roads.

Freeways don't "go everywhere," and yet they seem to work fairly well for the motoring public. Why cannot a similar structure also work for cyclists... such that cyclists and motorists don't have to mix on feeder and arterial roads?

Of course the other solution is to stop designing feeder and arterial roads to look and act like freeways. Either solution works.

BTW the trail you are ranting about is likely designed by a Parks Department, for recreational weekend cyclists... not a traffic engineer, trying to design a transportation system.

I guess I need to count my blessings. I can get around town pretty well without riding on the major arterials for the most part. My 17 mile commute only has about 4 blocks worth busy roads. I usually try to avoid the busier streets, but on the occasions where I have used them, I get pretty decent consideration from drivers, with only a couple close calls. Around here I do see people on the major roads riding up against the curb; it just makes me cringe. If a rider is not up to taking the lane, perhaps the sidewalk is a safer place, but then there is the danger of motor traffic turning across the sidewalk. I think every city has its own "feel" or "norms" with regard to bikes. I rode in Arlington, VA, and Washington, DC, for the first time last week and it was definitely different that it is here in Fort Worth.

Oh, goodness, I didn't mean to start a VC thread, particularly when honestly, in my head, what I really meant was the broader concept of transportation cycling. In certain communities, and I think ours is one (excepting the downtown and campus areas, which are actually pretty darn good for cyclists), even the less "aggressive" approach for lack of a better word is dangerous because of distracted drivers. Honestly, drivers who are that distracted are dangerous to more than just the cyclists. Hats off to all of you who use your bike as your primary means of transportation, be it VC or otherwise. I simply don't have the guts.

He was probably panicking and never even thought of it. He probably wishes he'd done so now.

As for the "Bike friendly community" signs, that's irrelevant. Cyclists will die in the most bike friendly areas too. (Hopefully less often, but it does happen.)

As for the motorist that drove off, nothing is going to happen to them. Two other cars hit the cyclist, and if the cyclist is a body on the road no jury would convict a driver of running over them -- especially when another driver did exactly the same thing. They could nail this person with leaving the scene, but all the person has to do is claim that they thought they hit some debris and that would do it.

Very sad story.

A very sad story. I feel for her kids.

That being said, however, I have real concern for people who use this as an excuse to avoid certain types of vehicular cycling. The reason the deaths make the news is because they happen so relatively seldom. No one would buy a paper in which the headline was "Millions of Responsible Cyclists Make it Safely to their Destinations". This is the reality and while it is sad when someone passes, and yes, we do need to do work to make these things as close to non-existant as possible, this in no way means transportational cycling is more dangerous than other forms of transportation.

How would you go about designing such a system? How would you handle those situations where bicycles and cars will have to mix? As there will be times when either the roads for cars or the roads for bikes will have to cross each other or do you purpose some sort of tunnel/bridge system for that? But even with that there will still be points where the two have to mix such as at entrances to malls and shopping centers, etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlApb...feature=player
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=5HDN9fUlqU8

Not that difficult. We have the start of this in Madison WI. There is a heavily used mixed bike path running close to the University. This spring the city installed a bike only light with different timing from motor vehicles. It works very well and gets bikes across a very busy intersection with no problems and no interactions with cars.

Yes, I read the post. Part of the problem as I'm sure you know is that there are plenty of motorists out there who do not want us on "their" roads no matter how limited our access may be to those roads. I'm basing this on the fact that even when out riding when myself and only one car are the road that some drivers still feel the need to either honk their horns aggressively or buzz me as they pass me. I am also basing this on the shouts of "get on the sidewalk" by motorists again when we are the only traffic on the street.

So that any "road" system i.e. bike path setup just for bicycles would have to go "everywhere." If for no other reason than to appease the motorists.

No, they don't, but with surface roads do they really need to go "everywhere?" I agree that some roads could (should) probably be set aside as bike only or even an entire network be built and set aside for just bicycles. An infrastructure that bypasses feeder and arterial roads. As well as a lowering of the speed on the rest of the roads.

This is very true.

I believe that it is/was, as it is only "open" from sunrise to sunset. Although I have heard it referred to as an alternative to using the "regular roads" to get around. The problem is that if it's only available from sunrise to sunset than how are people suppose to use it as an alternative to sharing the road with motor vehicle traffic?

Also will this dedicated bike path be a totally dedicated bike path, or will walkers, joggers, roller bladers, skateboarders, etc. be allowed access to it as well? Or will they have their own infrastructure?

What a bummer. And man... that area sounds like a HORRIBLE place for biking! In Portland if this happened there would be riots.

If I understand the videos correctly, each segment of traffic i.e. bicycles, cars, and pedestrian get their own traffic lights and cycles. With bicycles apparently getting their own path through and around the intersection.

Question, what if a cyclist wishes to make a left turn as a vehicle instead of taking the "long way" around the intersection?

Also are pedestrians, skateboarders, roller bladers, etc. allowed to access the bike lane/path? Also one very real problem that I can see with that kind of a setup here in the states is that we have WAY too many drivers who are driving distracted for whatever reason, or who jump red lights, or who flat out run red lights. Or who because they're distracted by their cell phones fail to take off when the light turns green.

I was stuck behind such a driver today when I was out riding today. S/he was sitting at the red light either talking or texting the light turns green and they're still sitting there with several of us sitting behind them waiting for them to get their head out of their fourth point of contact and get moving again.

As for taking a left turn on the street the answer would be no, at least with the Dutch, but why would anyone want to. With a well thought out cycle track that avoids just about every serious car/bike interaction only the most macho of cyclist would care to ride on the street. As the video shows the lights are timed so there is little to no wait when making the second turn. Placing yourself out in the middle of traffic just doesn't make sense to theoretically save a few seconds.

I believe the Dutch cycle paths are bike only as pedestrians have their own walkway, but the paths here in Madison are mixed use, though the intersection I mentioned earlier cyclist and pedestrians each have their own crossing place. They have been around for some years and have been expanding as of late. Yes, there are pedestrians on the path but there are few problems as the public has simple gotten used to it. We've learned how to deal with each other. A bell goes a long way to making live easier for everyone. The only problem I've ever seen are with dogs and I think they should be banned from mixed use paths. Dogs and bikes just don't get along. At least in Madison roller blades are way out of style. I haven't seen one in a few years. The skate boarders have no interest in mixed use paths and I rarely see one.

Bad drivers are everywhere, and even bad bike users. I cringe every time I see some dumb cyclist riding at night without a light, and every time I see a car run a light. That's no excuse for not having good infrastructure.