Woman Cyclist Struck and Killed May 3rd in Olney

[OneEighth]

Actually, MCL1981 has hit on something. Want to impact behavior? Impact the bottom line.
If you believe that the reporting or the handling of the comment section are not acceptable, go after the advertisers. If enough advertisers decide they would rather not be associated with a particular behavior/message/image, you will see change. Right quick, too.
Hope you all have a great ride home.

[Terpfan]

I asked an old friend of mine who still lives in Olney not too far from there (about a mile in Olney Mills) who said yesterday was pretty foggy. I feel horribly for the cyclist, but I can say if it were me, I would be extremely nervous riding that section of 108 (frankly most of it now that I think about it) in broad daylight covered head-to-toe in reflective gear. It’s 45 or 50 mph speed limit and a few of those turns are proceeded by little ridge/hills. I know because I had a few close calls with deer back there growing up and recall many an accident. Last year’s drunk driving tragedy with the Magruder HS students occured there too. Not saying it is right and I feel horribly for the poor woman’s family, but just i was surprised at how many people were biking that stretch.

[KLizotte]

If the video footage of people biking was in fact along the same road as the accident, then I hope local officials/residents take notice that there is real demand for a segregated MUP and start the whole process of building one. A pipe dream, I know.

There is probably plenty of latent demand for cycling in that area but it appears that the poor road design doesn’t support it.

[MCL1981]

Mark, a useless meaningless law is no law at as far as I’m concerned. My point remains.

The advertisers aren’t going to do that. They don’t give a crap and it is tons of money. They probably encourage it.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

[Mark Blacknell]

Err, so what’s your point? That lights and reflectors are meaningless when it comes to riding on the road?

Maybe this is a topic for another thread.

[Bunjabi]

MCL1981: Yes, the reason these comment sections exist is to drive Web hits, especially when they make it easy to comment anonymously. It’s distasteful, and I guarantee no reporter there likes it. That’s a business decision, not an editorial one.

I say ignoring them is an easy to way simply ignore the problem of bad media coverage of cycling, though. Those sections will be there whether or not you comment. It’s the same as saying you don’t like a candidate for office, so you won’t vote. Someone still gets elected, and you don’t get a say. In this case, they still cover the news, but they don’t have your insight, so it continues without nuance.

Posting a thoughtful comment on a thread like like sticks out to a reporter and has the chance to affect how they view future stories. Letting it devolve into a rabid post fest featuring only the more base views of society guarantees the coverage stays the same and all the people who hear the story get the same anti-bike schlock because no one with a brain spoke up.

Little chance of success is better than no chance at all in my opinion.

[MCL1981]

@Mark Blacknell 19236 wrote:

Err, so what’s your point? That lights and reflectors are meaningless when it comes to riding on the road?

Maybe this is a topic for another thread.

I don’t know where you got that from. That is the complete opposite of the point I’ve been making. I’ve made it abundantly clear what I’m talking about. I’m not sure why you keep taking it in the opposite direction. For the third time, there is nothing that specifies position, quantity,intensity, or type. Therefore, the law is completely meaningless and useless. Therefore it might as well not even be there. Our visibility on the road seems pretty on-topic to this thread.

[Author]

Posts