[mstone]

@Steve O 197778 wrote:

YES.
And I would add: Advocate for better trail designs and removal of bollards from existing trails so that when those freak occurrences happen and mistakes are made, the likelihood of injury is reduced – just like we do with automobile infrastructure: no poles in the middle of streets and lots of protection for when drivers make mistakes. So they don’t just smash into a solid concrete object.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]21008[/ATTACH]

Oooh, that’s an excellent example of the DOT mindset of “protect the drivers and screw the plebs on the sidewalk”!

[mstone]

@Crickey7 197745 wrote:

Yep. If you can put on both parties, there are two deductibles instead of one.

it’s not that: they like it because contributory negligence makes it much less likely that someone will try to go to court to get a better outcome than whatever the insurance companies decide is appropriate.

[mstone]

@Hancockbs 197738 wrote:

“something similar” is a specific conclusion? The bollard in and of itself, nor its placement alone could possibly cause a death. Unless the bollard was somehow launched at the rider, he had to be moving toward it, fall on it, or something similar to result in a death. Lack of the person hitting the bollard or the bollard hitting the person, with some velocity, there is no possible outcome of death.

I guess you think this is cute. I think it’s disgusting.

[mstone]

@Hancockbs 197614 wrote:

We are obviously at odds over the statement and interpretation of events here, so I’ll make this my last attempt to get my pure point across. One last time, ALL I am advocating for is stating known facts in cases such as this.

Weird how much your later posts differ from your original post. To refresh your memory: “The bollard placement did not kill the rider. Lack of attention, riding too fast, or something similar resulted in the cyclist crashing into a bollard and his death.” Again, that’s not a call for “facts”, that’s a call for a specific conclusion based completely on speculation in the absence of supporting facts.

[mstone]

@Hancockbs 197583 wrote:

You miss the point of my message. I did not advocate for lesser safety standards when it comes to bicycle facilities. I advocated for factual statements when a bicyclist crashes.

No you didn’t, you advocated for a specific interpretation of events. A headline will never list all contributing factors, only a couple of words that fit into a headline. If you want the focus to be on speculation about one out of all the things that could have possibly happened differently in the chain of events leading to the conclusion I guess that’s your stylistic choice–but I think many people could reasonably believe that identifying the final link in the chain, the one which is most definite and the one most amenable to correction via public policy, would make more sense.

[mstone]

@Hancockbs 197565 wrote:

Tragic ending no doubt and likely bad placement for a bollard, but that headline is akin to “cyclist crashes into car” when a car pulls out in front of the cyclist. The bollard placement did not kill the rider. Lack of attention, riding too fast, or something similar resulted in the cyclist crashing into a bollard and his death.

We spend literally tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars every year on ensuring that inattentive drivers can’t be killed by things next to roads. I guess I’d be ok if the standard were “if you’re playing with your phone in the car you deserve to die like a cyclist” but as long as the standard is “road facilities must (by law) be built to protect inattentive drivers” then the same standard should apply to bicycle facilities.

[mstone]

@arlcxrider 197249 wrote:

Notice also (from the story) the perfidious “duct bank” that lurks below the surface and snares the unsuspecting. See also: Columbia Pike.

ducts are similarly one of the rationales for the crappy new trail inside the sound wall on 66!

also, the picture in that article is making me nauseous. if a little dutch angle is good, a lot must be better, right?

[mstone]

@Crickey7 197274 wrote:

We’re going to have a lot of battles for infra in the County over the next several decades. MoCo is just starting on the process of building and retrofitting a bike network. I’d rather save good will for bigger fights than this.

Yes, it’s important to lose every time there isn’t a simple and cheap solution, not just once!

[mstone]

helmets are a good excuse for killing a bill you wanted to kill anyway

[mstone]

@cvcalhoun 195048 wrote:

IPlus, female cyclists tend to be harassed at much greater rates than male cyclists. It is common for me to get yelled at by motorists for doing something perfectly legal–e.g., riding on the street rather than the sidewalk or taking the lane when the lane is too narrow for safe passing. Male cycling friends tell me this happens to them much more rarely. So it would make sense to me that women would ride more in protected bike lanes, which a) are safer, and b) make it clear to passing motorists that they are riding exactly where they are supposed to.

I’m amazed at how much more honking I hear when I’m riding with my wife, on the same roads riding the same way. People suck.

[mstone]

–> nope!!! <--

[mstone]

nope

[mstone]

It’s so cute that they’re pretending to care about public input while they do what they’ve been trying to do for decades.

[mstone]

@Starduster 194194 wrote:

Here we go again: https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2019/11/pedestrian-cyclist-hospitalized-after-separate-crashes-in-montgomery-co/

Ah, the wisdom of a crosswalk at a freeway on-ramp…

just remember, if you get hit outside of the crosswalk it’s your own fault! if you get hit in the crosswalk, OTOH, it’s just one of those things.

[mstone]

that didn’t end well

[Author]

Posts