8/26/16 Cyclist Hit By Car
Our Community › Forums › Crashes, Close Calls and Incidents › 8/26/16 Cyclist Hit By Car
- This topic has 44 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 7 months ago by
lordofthemark.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 8, 2016 at 8:27 pm #1056893
KLizotte
ParticipantI was recently at Mt. Airy Bicycles in MD and they have a sub specialty in outfitting disabled people with bikes of every variety (2-4 wheels). I saw a lot of people riding bikes with some rather impressive impairments (paralysis, MS) as well as some rather elderly folks who had trouble walking. That said, these types of cyclists tend to ride slow, have slow or limited reflexes and often poor or non-existent sight or hearing. They really cannot ride vehicularly and shouldn’t be expected to. Please remember that we want to make cycling available to all types of people and of all ages. The spectrum crosses lycranauts, little kids, the disabled, elderly, cargo/kiddie bikes, trikes, velomobiles, bikeshare, mountain bikers, immigrants, etc. This forum tends to lump everyone into the lycranaut, vehicular riding club and we need to think more broadly if we want to broaden biking’s appeal and funding levels. Please keep in mind too that we will all get old and creaky some day and will probably be needing those protected bike lanes and MUPs.
For instance, now that I’ve started riding a MUP I can better appreciate the hassles of finding a good place to lock up a cargo bike or one with a burley trailer. Grrrrrr
P.S. If you are ever in need of finding a bike (of any variety) for someone with a physical disability please visit Mt. Airy. I think they are the only place around here with an astonishing array of oddball bikes to choose from (supposedly over 4,000 bikes in stock). If you can dream it up, they probably have one in stock.
P.P.S. I take these issues to heart since my sister has MS and my dad has a prosthetic leg.
September 10, 2016 at 4:09 am #1056955
Steve OParticipant@DismalScientist 145627 wrote:
There is a set of facts consistent with the original description of the event where the primary fault for the incident would primarily be the kid’s. I outlined it in my post.
Why is it so difficult to understand that riding on the sidewalk often requires more attention and skill than riding in the street? We do cyclists no favor by advocating segregating them from motor vehicle traffic when they end up on more dangerous infrastructure.
I do not know this for certain, but for argument’s sake, I am going to posit that the walk signal was in the “walk” phase for the child on the bike.
If a person in a sidewalk cannot safely and comfortably walk, mosey, ride, run, stroller, skateboard, skip, or somersault across an intersection when the walk signal is illuminated, then when the hell can they?
If I am driving down the street and the traffic lights are green, I should (and do) feel comfortable proceeding without having to slow to a near stop at every intersection because some truck might blow through and smash into me. Likewise, if I am approaching an intersection with a walk signal, I should be able to proceed without having to assume I am likely to be run down by someone breaking the law at every intersection.
Unfortunately, we have accepted this as the normal state of things. However, I vociferously disagree with your contention that in a case like this that the “primary fault” is borne by the kid. You are suggesting that he is at “primary fault” for proceeding through an intersection with a walk signal? Gawd, I’m glad you are not training our police.
September 10, 2016 at 11:07 am #1056958DismalScientist
ParticipantIf the car was astride the crosswalk before the kid entered the crosswalk and the kid T-boned the car, it’s primarily the kid’s fault. There are no sightlines at that signal. As a driver, you can’t see down the sidewalk unless you are already in the crosswalk.
September 10, 2016 at 12:46 pm #1056959Alcova cyclist
Participant@DismalScientist 145702 wrote:
If the car was astride the crosswalk before the kid entered the crosswalk and the kid T-boned the car, it’s primarily the kid’s fault. There are no sightlines at that signal. As a driver, you can’t see down the sidewalk unless you are already in the crosswalk.
Then it sounds like drivers shouldn’t be turning right on red there under any circumstances. “Well I had no way to know if a bike/ped was coming, so I just went” seems like a really bad way to manage mixed use traffic.
The Virginia drivers manual says: “You may turn right while the traffic signal displays a red light. Before turning, you must come to a complete stop. Look both ways and yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and other traffic. Be sure to check for less visible vehicles such as motorcycles, bicycles and mopeds.”
September 12, 2016 at 1:19 pm #1056984Steve OParticipant@DismalScientist 145702 wrote:
If the car was astride the crosswalk before the kid entered the crosswalk and the kid T-boned the car, it’s primarily the kid’s fault. There are no sightlines at that signal. As a driver, you can’t see down the sidewalk unless you are already in the crosswalk.
I do not believe there are any circumstances in which a driver is permitted to block a crosswalk that is in the “walk” phase.
September 12, 2016 at 1:53 pm #1056986ParticipantWell that means that there never can be right on red if there are insufficient sight-lines at the stop line to execute such a turn.
September 12, 2016 at 2:10 pm #1056987huskerdont
Participant@DismalScientist 145731 wrote:
Well that means that there never can be right on red if there are insufficient sight-lines at the stop line to execute such a turn.
Hear hear! To the end of right-turn-on-red!
At least in cities and close in suburbs–anywhere there are sidewalks, in my view. Too many pedestrians (and cyclists) are hit or have to dodge out of the way when they have the signal yet drivers don’t see them. And I say that as a driver who will surely feel mildly inconvenienced by having to wait a bit longer every now and then.
September 12, 2016 at 2:18 pm #1056988Steve OParticipant@DismalScientist 145731 wrote:
Well that means that there never can be right on red if there are insufficient sight-lines at the stop line to execute such a turn.
Good. I see that you now understand.
September 12, 2016 at 2:32 pm #1056990ginacico
ParticipantRight turn on red means the driver has to yield. If they collide with someone, in the crosswalk or otherwise, they didn’t yield the right of way.
September 12, 2016 at 2:33 pm #1056991Fairlington124
Participant@DismalScientist 145731 wrote:
Well that means that there never can be right on red if there are insufficient sight-lines at the stop line to execute such a turn.
I would welcome this greatly.
September 12, 2016 at 2:38 pm #1056992mstone
Participant@DismalScientist 145731 wrote:
Well that means that there never can be right on red if there are insufficient sight-lines at the stop line to execute such a turn.
September 12, 2016 at 2:53 pm #1056993ParticipantFine, have the county put up no right turn on red signs at all such intersections. What do you do before this happens?
What about crosswalks at unsignaled intersections? What if a driver can’t see down the sidewalk unless you are in the crosswalk? No right turn there? How about no driving straight in such situations where a cyclist could be on the sidewalk?September 12, 2016 at 3:03 pm #1056994dasgeh
ParticipantI think there is one point we’ve danced around here: streets are engineered with certain speeds in mind. For example, on two lane roads, where the sightline is inadequate to see cars coming AT THE SPEED LIMIT (ok, maybe prevailing speed) there’s a solid yellow. Where the sightline is adequate, there’s a dashed yellow. Drivers don’t have to think that hard.
For sidewalks, however, it seems to me like there are not good standards for the speed of sidewalk users. Maybe a better approach would be to base whether right on red is allowed on sightlines for cars stopped at the stopline assuming a 12-mph speed of sidewalk users. (or 8mph? or 10mph?)
Then it would make sense to tell people riding on sidewalks to keep it under that speed.
September 12, 2016 at 3:19 pm #1056995ParticipantI think there is one point we’ve danced around here: streets are engineered with certain speeds in mind. For example, on two lane roads, where the sightline is inadequate to see cars coming AT THE SPEED LIMIT (ok, maybe prevailing speed) there’s a solid yellow. Where the sightline is adequate, there’s a dashed yellow. Drivers don’t have to think that hard.
For sidewalks, however, it seems to me like there are not good standards for the speed of sidewalk users. Maybe a better approach would be to base whether right on red is allowed on sightlines for cars stopped at the stopline assuming a 12-mph speed of sidewalk users. (or 8mph? or 10mph?)
Then it would make sense to tell people riding on sidewalks to keep it under that speed.
September 12, 2016 at 3:32 pm #1056996Tania
ParticipantAs a pedestrian, I almost got run over by a car Sat late afternoon because a woman came out the Home Depot exit wanting to turn right and only looked left to see oncoming cars. She had clear sight lines, she just wasn’t paying attention (it was pretty obvious I was already in the crosswalk as she approached) and was driving way too fast considering she was approaching a stop sign. I’d be in the hospital right now if my friend hadn’t yanked me back. Then, just a few minutes later, we tried to cross the street with the white walk signal and car turning right almost took us out – full daylight, no obstructions. And THEN on the way home, another car turning right almost plowed into us as we were crossing another street. All three times we had the right of way and were crossing legally and in safe manner.
So how about drivers just get their heads out of their arses?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.