Bicyclist killed by woman driver who was downloading cell phone ring tones

[Johnny Sunset]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Mark Hickey wrote:
> >> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >I have had cagers yell and point at the "bike path" on several
> >> >occasions. I was not on the "bike path" since it appeared to have been
> >> >designed for a maximum speed of about 15 kph/10 mph [1] and the
> >> >intersections with the real road could only be safely negotiated by
> >> >dismounting and becoming a pedestrian.
> >>
> >> Help me out here... I'm trying to picture what kind of traffic
> >> patterns would require dismounting and walking. Mid-town Manhattan at
> >> rush hour? Maybe. Otherwise I can't imagine (I literally can't
> >> remember the last time I had to walk my bike across some sort of
> >> intersection).
> >
> >The point is I was able to ride SAFELY on the STREET at a reasonable
> >pace (~25 kph/15 mph), but could not do so on the "bike path". This
> >"bike" path was an extra-wide sidewalk with a white stripe and bicycle
> >icons. While being ON the path will protect one from motor vehicles
> >(unless one jumps the curb), there is more danger from pedestrians and
> >their accessories (dogs, strollers, children, etc.). However, the
> >intersections of the "bike path" with the real road are too dangerous
> >to ride through unless motor vehicle traffic is practically
> >non-existent. Hence, the need to dismount and act like a pedestrian.
>
> Still not getting it. It seems from your description that the danger
> at these intersections is from motor vehicles. But you're also saying
> that once you determine there aren't a lot of cars coming, that it's
> somehow safter (and necessary) to dismount to cross the intersection
> rather than riding across (which would obviously get you out of the
> way of oncoming traffic much, much faster). I simply can't imagine
> this scenario.

Well, one COULD ride on the pedestrian part of the side walk to get to
the "Walk" button, and then ride over the curbs and/or in the
pedestrian crosswalk, but this is bad form and defeats the purpose of
using the bicycle as a vehicle.

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

 

[Johnny Sunset]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Mark Hickey wrote:
> >> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >The point is I was able to ride SAFELY on the STREET at a reasonable
> >> >pace (~25 kph/15 mph), but could not do so on the "bike path". This
> >> >"bike" path was an extra-wide sidewalk with a white stripe and bicycle
> >> >icons. While being ON the path will protect one from motor vehicles
> >> >(unless one jumps the curb), there is more danger from pedestrians and
> >> >their accessories (dogs, strollers, children, etc.). However, the
> >> >intersections of the "bike path" with the real road are too dangerous
> >> >to ride through unless motor vehicle traffic is practically
> >> >non-existent. Hence, the need to dismount and act like a pedestrian.
> >>
> >> Still not getting it. It seems from your description that the danger
> >> at these intersections is from motor vehicles. But you're also saying
> >> that once you determine there aren't a lot of cars coming, that it's
> >> somehow safter (and necessary) to dismount to cross the intersection
> >> rather than riding across (which would obviously get you out of the
> >> way of oncoming traffic much, much faster). I simply can't imagine
> >> this scenario.
> >
> >The conflict happens when cars wish to turn right - they have to either
> >cross or occupy the bike lane. Another conflict occurs when the biker
> >has to turn left. I guess you'd just have to ride on some of these
> >things to see how truly crummy they are.
> >
> >Where bike paths cross mid-block, it's even worse. You not only have
> >to watch cross-traffic, but parallel traffic turning right, becoming
> >cross-traffic. And fight the dogs, three-abreast walkers,
> >jogger-stroller middle-of-the-path runners, and ridiculously-low path
> >speed limits. Well, for vehicular bicycling, that is. Fine for
> >casual, out-for-a-Sunday-ride riders.
>
> Still nothing in your description that makes me think you'd be safer
> getting off the bike and spending more time in the intersection. I
> haven't walked across any sort of intersection I can think of in many,
> many moons, though I see people doing it occasionally (for no apparent
> reason I can see other than probably lack of confidence on their
> bike).

A pedestrian walking in a crosswalk has the legal right of way. A
cyclist riding in the crosswalk does not. As Ed Pirrero indicates, many
of the "bike path" crossings are set up so the traffic on the street
ALWAYS has the right of way, which makes safe crossing impossible
unless traffic is light. In this case, the only safe way to cross the
street is to use a pedestrian crossing away from the "bike path".

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

 

[Robert Coe]

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 06:41:53 GMT, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
: In article
: <[email protected]
: .net>,
: "John Emmons" <[email protected]> wrote:
:
: > As for your claims about multitasking, bully for you. Driving while using a
: > cell phone is more dangerous than driving when not whether you can multitask
: > or not. Look it up next time you're shaving and eating breakfast at the same
: > time.
:
: Most people cannot walk and talk at the same time;
: literally. Come on. All of you while walking have had
: to dodge a cellular telephone addled zombie on the
: sidewalk/pavement.

My 2-year-old granddaughter can walk and talk at the same time. If you can't
do it, I suggest that you have a problem.

Is this increasingly loony thread ever going to end?

 

[gamer]

Robert Coe wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 06:41:53 GMT, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
>: In article
>: <[email protected]
>: .net>,
>: "John Emmons" <[email protected]> wrote:
>:
>: > As for your claims about multitasking, bully for you. Driving while using a
>: > cell phone is more dangerous than driving when not whether you can multitask
>: > or not. Look it up next time you're shaving and eating breakfast at the same
>: > time.
>:
>: Most people cannot walk and talk at the same time;
>: literally. Come on. All of you while walking have had
>: to dodge a cellular telephone addled zombie on the
>: sidewalk/pavement.
>
>My 2-year-old granddaughter can walk and talk at the same time. If you can't
>do it, I suggest that you have a problem.
>
>Is this increasingly loony thread ever going to end?
>
>

Talk about the dumbest reply on record. You win (that award).

 

[[email protected]]

Robert Coe wrote:
> Is this increasingly loony thread ever going to end?

****** ****** ****** ******

 

[Robert Coe]

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 11:17:20 -0500, gamer <[email protected]> wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote:
:
: >On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 06:41:53 GMT, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
: >: In article
: >: <[email protected]
: >: .net>,
: >: "John Emmons" <[email protected]> wrote:
: >:
: >: > As for your claims about multitasking, bully for you. Driving while using a
: >: > cell phone is more dangerous than driving when not whether you can multitask
: >: > or not. Look it up next time you're shaving and eating breakfast at the same
: >: > time.
: >:
: >: Most people cannot walk and talk at the same time;
: >: literally. Come on. All of you while walking have had
: >: to dodge a cellular telephone addled zombie on the
: >: sidewalk/pavement.
: >
: >My 2-year-old granddaughter can walk and talk at the same time. If you can't
: >do it, I suggest that you have a problem.
: >
: >Is this increasingly loony thread ever going to end?
: >
: >
:
: Talk about the dumbest reply on record. You win (that award).

You prove my point. Increasingly loony.

 

[[email protected]]

Robert Coe wrote:
>
>
> My 2-year-old granddaughter can walk and talk at the same time. If you can't
> do it, I suggest that you have a problem.

If your 2-year-old daugher were walking while talking into a cell
phone, I think she'd be paying less attention to where she was
walking, who she was about to bump into, whether she was about to walk
out in front of a car, etc. At least, that's what I observe among
college students. She'd also be talking much louder than a normal
conversation, and talking loudly in inappropriate settings (like
meetings and restaurants).

OTOH, she'd be much more informed of her 2-year-old friends activities
- as in "What are you doing?.... Oh nothing... Are you going to Nikki's
tomorrow? ... What did you guys have for lunch?"

It's conversations like this that are so valuable that drivers (and
walkers) just _have_ to have a phone to their ear.

>
> Is this increasingly loony thread ever going to end?

To quote from your post yesterday:

"Who cares? Nobody says you have to read it."

Hope this helps!

- Frank Krygowski