Bicyclist/RV Death

[TUCQUALA]

Just read this am:

clicky

Having just come back from 3 weeks on 2 lane Idaho and Montana roads, I feel for the rider and his family, but also for the RV driver. 2 lanes, curves, and bikes = problems!! Just my opinion.

[colliehauler]

2012Coleman wrote:

camperdave wrote:
Driving 101. Don't outdrive your sight lines. Could be a bicyclist, a deer, a homeless drunk sitting in the street, a pool of oil, you don't know what's around the next corner. As a life long motorcyclist and ex-road bicyclist, I'm quite aware of the dangers around me.

I don't pass a bicycle if I don't have the room. Sometimes that means going REAL slow and getting honked at for a while until either a) space opens up to make the pass or b) the bicycle pulls off and lets me by.

There are a whole lot of impatient drivers out on the road these days, I gave up road cycling about 15 years ago and stick with mountain biking now. I'm a good cyclist, but I don't trust people. Seems like every few months there's another cyclist killed by a car around here. Road riding does not pass the sanity test for me anymore.

You could be describing me - I used to cycle on the road, but now only use the trails because drivers these days are ignorant and impatient when it comes to cyclists.

In my area, in a residential area with no sidewalks, the cyclist is allowed to take the entire lane - lots of signs and graphics painted on the road surface. Most cyclists in these areas are actually riding at the 20 mph posted speed limit and will ride to the right to allow cars to pass.

But you get these impatient drivers who just don't give a hoot and get angry at some guy on a bike making their commute 5 minutes longer. You even have to watch it when coming from the opposite direction because these geniuses pull into oncoming traffic to get around the cyclist.

If both groups respected each others rights, it wouldn't be dangerous - but you go ahead and be responsible for another persons death regardless of the cyclist breaking the law. Many times they aren't - your just ignorant of what the laws actually state.

Very poignant, on the news they were just talking about the numbers of distracted drivers on the road accounting for more accidents then drunk or speeding drivers. I know riding a motorcycle that you have to be a extremely defensive driver.

[2012Coleman]

camperdave wrote:
Driving 101. Don't outdrive your sight lines. Could be a bicyclist, a deer, a homeless drunk sitting in the street, a pool of oil, you don't know what's around the next corner. As a life long motorcyclist and ex-road bicyclist, I'm quite aware of the dangers around me.

I don't pass a bicycle if I don't have the room. Sometimes that means going REAL slow and getting honked at for a while until either a) space opens up to make the pass or b) the bicycle pulls off and lets me by.

There are a whole lot of impatient drivers out on the road these days, I gave up road cycling about 15 years ago and stick with mountain biking now. I'm a good cyclist, but I don't trust people. Seems like every few months there's another cyclist killed by a car around here. Road riding does not pass the sanity test for me anymore.

You could be describing me - I used to cycle on the road, but now only use the trails because drivers these days are ignorant and impatient when it comes to cyclists.

In my area, in a residential area with no sidewalks, the cyclist is allowed to take the entire lane - lots of signs and graphics painted on the road surface. Most cyclists in these areas are actually riding at the 20 mph posted speed limit and will ride to the right to allow cars to pass.

But you get these impatient drivers who just don't give a hoot and get angry at some guy on a bike making their commute 5 minutes longer. You even have to watch it when coming from the opposite direction because these geniuses pull into oncoming traffic to get around the cyclist.

If both groups respected each others rights, it wouldn't be dangerous - but you go ahead and be responsible for another persons death regardless of the cyclist breaking the law. Many times they aren't - your just ignorant of what the laws actually state.

[JohnG3]

Ductape wrote:
There’s no excuse for running down a cyclist in your lane traveling the same direction. Vehicular homicide open and shut case.

So when we were leaving a favorite place there was a mob of bicyclists clustered on the stopped on the narrow shoulder. As I slowed to a crawl as I approached cyclists. The gaggle of riders decided it was a good d time to start peddling. Well one older rider just started riding and fell over onto the road. He was lucky as I saw how wobbly he was and there was no oncoming vehicles. I was able to avoid the cyclist. Scared the **** out of us.

[colliehauler]

Kansas has a 3 feet law for bike right of way as well. I personally give a minimum of 6 feet just in case a gust of wind or rider error that might bring the rider into my path. Most main roads in Kansas have a full lane for the shoulder that bicyclists use. Some scenic secondary roads do not have a shoulder but usually not much traffic.

[Cloud_Dancer]

Three (3) feet, got it. So, sometimes I might need to slow way down (with my emergency lights on).

[TXiceman]

Some bike riders are a problem and break the laws. But most state have a law that bikes abide by the same traffic laws as a vehicle. Motorist are also require to keep 3 foot minimum clearance when passing a bike. Texas requires commercial vehicles to keep 5 foot clearance.

Ken

[camperdave]

Driving 101. Don't outdrive your sight lines. Could be a bicyclist, a deer, a homeless drunk sitting in the street, a pool of oil, you don't know what's around the next corner. As a life long motorcyclist and ex-road bicyclist, I'm quite aware of the dangers around me.

I don't pass a bicycle if I don't have the room. Sometimes that means going REAL slow and getting honked at for a while until either a) space opens up to make the pass or b) the bicycle pulls off and lets me by.

There are a whole lot of impatient drivers out on the road these days, I gave up road cycling about 15 years ago and stick with mountain biking now. I'm a good cyclist, but I don't trust people. Seems like every few months there's another cyclist killed by a car around here. Road riding does not pass the sanity test for me anymore.

[colliehauler]

4x4van wrote:

Ductape wrote:
There’s no excuse for running down a cyclist in your lane traveling the same direction. Vehicular homicide open and shut case.

Really? Be careful with absolutes. What if the cyclist suddenly swerves out into the middle of the lane as you approach? Nice to know that you would still consider the vehicle driver guilty of homicide; open and shut case, right? :R Wow, hope you're never on a jury; the generally accepted thing to do is weigh all of the evidence before rendering a verdict.

Very true so many arm chair judge and jury that make decesions without all the facts from a news article.

[4x4van]

Ductape wrote:
There’s no excuse for running down a cyclist in your lane traveling the same direction. Vehicular homicide open and shut case.

Really? Be careful with absolutes. What if the cyclist suddenly swerves out into the middle of the lane as you approach? Nice to know that you would still consider the vehicle driver guilty of homicide; open and shut case, right? :R Wow, hope you're never on a jury; the generally accepted thing to do is weigh all of the evidence before rendering a verdict.

[Eric_Lisa]

'Doo-doo occurs' (Replace those words with the censored ones as you see fit).

We can wrangle the blame-game details all day long. However, at the end of that day it won't change the fact that the cyclist is dead. If any one of the three participants had been even a second or two different in time, this could have been avoided. The only thing to be done now is for the legal system to assess responsibility and assign penalties as the law provides.

Taking the law and traffic rules completely out of the equation, and I believe the cyclist is 100% at fault. A bad road to be on in the first place for a cyclist - 2-lane, questionable shoulders, and vehicle traffic that is way bigger than them. Situational awareness did not make him get out of the way, and the rest is physics. This was simply a physically dangerous place for that cyclist to be - regardless of the laws or rules that allow them to be there.

For me... I rode 23 miles yesterday on a linear trail. There is one section of that trail where it is also used as driveway access. A couple years ago I came through there around the corner and tearing up the trail was a car. They slammed on their brakes, gravel flying everywhere, and I went over the bank and in to the blackberries rather than bounce off their hood & windshield. Sure, the speeding driver would have been at fault, but it would have hurt me a helluva lot more than the blackberry bushes.

[badsix]

they have the right to ride there, but NOT the common sense to know better.
Jay D.

[Crowe]

there should be a license fee established so there could be some funding for adequate bike lanes and other bike things.

No thanks-we pay enough in taxes.

On some roads there's just no place for a bike lane. Many of the roads in the northeast are barely wide enough for 2 cars to pass each other let alone adding a bike line. It gets very difficult around here because there's a "3 foot" rule-you must pass a bicyclist at least 3 feet from him. There are so many factors that come into play when passing an object of any sort on a roadway-speed, weather conditions, the oncoming car speeding up unexpectedly, an unseen dip or bump in the road-that can make a safe situation go south in a heartbeat. Personally I can't understand why bicyclists (and joggers) choose the roads and the timing they do-it almost seems as if they are asking for trouble. What happened is a very tragic accident that may or may not have been avoidable. NO ONE knows for sure.

[sayoung]

badsix wrote:
there should be a license fee established so there could be some funding for adequate bike lanes and other bike things.
Jay D.

I grew up in Dallas, Tx and in the 1950-60's there was a bicycle license fee, no bike lanes but a tax only.

[rk911]

badsix wrote:
there should be a license fee established so there could be some funding for adequate bike lanes and other bike things.
Jay D.

or simply reduce spending, cut fat and waste and re-direct $ to bike lanes.