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



"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Ed Pirrero wrote:


>> Have you ever had a driver shout "advice" to you about bicycles and
>> traffic law? If so, have they ever been right? (If not, then count
>> yourself lucky.)

>
>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).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
 
"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Ed Pirrero wrote:

>
> >> Have you ever had a driver shout "advice" to you about bicycles and
> >> traffic law? If so, have they ever been right? (If not, then count
> >> yourself lucky.)

> >
> >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).
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $795 ti frame



Mark,

Come to Houston to experience the beauty of a traffic environment designed
for cycling perfection. We have more ways to go straight from the saddle to
the morgue than anyplace I have ever seen.

Some years ago I was on the Braes Bayou bike trail waiting at a traffic
light, minding my own business, doing a trackstand. Some lady with a baby
carriage rams me into the intersection, right into a line of cars. She has
the audacity to tell me I was blocking her path. I guess she was in a
hurry....

Bruce
 
compubyte wrote:
> > doing something illegal and someone dies as a result, you deserve to go to
> > jail.
> >

>
> Last I knew. driving and using a cell phone WASN't Illegal . .
>
> In a nutshell. IT WAS AN ACCIDENT. and to say people who drive and use a
> cell phone should be fined. well . BS .. I've been using a cell phone and
> driving since they first came out. ya know the BIG OLD phones in your car
> bag.. I haven't hit anyone yet. . OH WAIT.. I think it's because I CAN
> MULTITASK..


And if ya don't agree with me. I'll kill ya!!!! Got lots of guns, ya
know.

Now dumbass's that can't chew gum and walk at the same time.
> well Duhh Maybe they shouldn't be driving and talking on a cell phone.. I
> truely don't believe everyone should suffer because of a few idiots.. let's
> face it .. i see idiots on cell phones riding bikes. not paying attention.
> let's fine them to. and LORD KNOWS how many morons I've seen WALKING and
> talking on a cell phone. Just walking into traffic or crossing the side
> street not looking. Now were gonna fine anyone using a cell phone NOT
> sitting down .. . it's simple People.. YOU SCREW UP. TAKE RESPONSIBLITY..
> doesn't mean everyone else needs to suffer. It's no more simplier than
> that.
> Kinda like all those damn gun laws over 22,000 in the USA.. I mean come on.
> 22,000 + . wouldnt 1 gun law work? YOU commit a crime with a gun. YOU get
> an AUTOMATIC GO TO JAIL for 20 years and NO more guns for you. Period!!
> Now using a cell phone and causing an accident is NOT a crime per say . I
> mean I saw people in here saying SHE should NOT be allowed to every drive
> again, she should not be allowed to use a cell phone ever again. WONDEFUL if
> she INTENTIONALLY go into a car. and on her cell phone to RUN SOMEONE DOWN
> on purpose.. I realize all your folks throwing stones NEVER EVER caused an
> accident doing something Careless .. and I wish the rest of us were as good
> as you. But come. OK.. I'm done venting. after reading all those comments I
> had to say something LOL
 
"Bruce Gilbert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Ed Pirrero wrote:

>>
>> >> Have you ever had a driver shout "advice" to you about bicycles and
>> >> traffic law? If so, have they ever been right? (If not, then count
>> >> yourself lucky.)
>> >
>> >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).
>>
>> Mark Hickey
>> Habanero Cycles
>> http://www.habcycles.com
>> Home of the $795 ti frame

>
>
> Mark,
>
> Come to Houston to experience the beauty of a traffic environment designed
> for cycling perfection. We have more ways to go straight from the saddle
> to
> the morgue than anyplace I have ever seen.
>
> Some years ago I was on the Braes Bayou bike trail waiting at a traffic
> light, minding my own business, doing a trackstand. Some lady with a baby
> carriage rams me into the intersection, right into a line of cars. She has
> the audacity to tell me I was blocking her path. I guess she was in a
> hurry....
>
> Bruce
>

Same kind of thing happened to me and to my chagrin the cop car that saw it
looked at me like he disapproved of me and was going to talk to me but
thought he was too busy anyway.

She yelled at me while I stared at her. I being up on curb had given way
to the ramp up but I did not notice there was a telephone pole blocking her
progress behind me. She was smoking while pramming her baby. They all do
in Surrey. Hate to be her kid.
 
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 18:57:50 +1100, dabac
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Ed Pirrero Wrote:
>>
>> .... it encourages drivers to think that the rest of all the other
>> roads are for cars only.

>
>Now why would that be? There are other "special" lanes than bike lanes
>(car pool lanes, slow vehicle lanes and whatnot). Why would the bike
>lane be more misunderstood than those?


The bike lane probably isn't more often misunderstood than the others, it's just
that the downside is worse. The thing that belongs in the bus lane can hold its
own.

Ron
 
Bruce Gilbert wrote:
> Come to Houston to experience the beauty of a traffic environment designed
> for cycling perfection. We have more ways to go straight from the saddle to
> the morgue than anyplace I have ever seen.
>
> Some years ago I was on the Braes Bayou bike trail waiting at a traffic
> light, minding my own business, doing a trackstand. Some lady with a baby
> carriage rams me into the intersection, right into a line of cars. She has
> the audacity to tell me I was blocking her path. I guess she was in a
> hurry....


Well, you *were* in her way, obviously! Duh! Or she wouldn't have (had
to) run into you!!! (<g>)

Bicyclists are the lowest form of life on the Food Chain. You must have
forgot or something.

Good museums. Easy access to fundamentalist radio. Velodrome. Recent
murders at any number of locations up and down the Braes Bayou trail
(incl at my grocery store and dry cleaners) at least during my years
there. Crazy drivers who dive heedlessly at 80mph from the left lane
for their usual exit, but then let you in line the next time around.
Carjackings, (real) ghettos, and the Medical Center.

Houston, a true microcosm of the USA: The best and the worst, all mixed
together.

I enjoyed talking to the bike cop on that trail who explained to me
that they didn't ride past a certain point on the way to MacGregor Park
"so we don't get hassled".

That's a group of at least two Houston officers, in uniform, with
sidearms and radios.

If you happen to know, is there still a ride at Planetary at 6:00,
Wednesdays? Great group. It's the only way to ride the surface streets
in Houston. --D-y
 
While using a cell phone and driving may not have been technically illegal,
driving recklessly is, if it results in someone's death that is what some
might call evidence of recklessness. The person who was killed wouldn't have
been if the driver had been paying attention to what she was supposed to be
doing, driving.

Next year it will be illegal to use anything but a handsfree cell phone in
California. I believe that New York state already has a law similiar to that
in place.

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.

As for using a cell phone and causing an accident, I believe the person in
question killed someone, sounds like she needs to "take responsibility" for
her actions as you say.

I think the expression you were looking for is "per se".

No one is claiming or has claimed that the woman in question acted with
malice or with forethought but her irresponsibility caused the death of
another. She should have been tried for manslaughter and from the sound of
it, she should have been convicted.

Venting is great, when someone you love is killed thru the irresponsible,
preventable actions of another, feel free to vent to your heart's content.

Dragging gun laws into the debate is simply a red herring, if the person in
question had been say at a firing range, not paying attention to what she
was doing and "accidentally" shot someone, she would be tried for
manslaughter or even possibly murder in the 2nd degree, that is what she was
doing with her far more lethal weapons of choice, her car and her cell
phone.

John E.

"compubyte" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > doing something illegal and someone dies as a result, you deserve to go

to
> > jail.
> >

>
> Last I knew. driving and using a cell phone WASN't Illegal . .
>
> In a nutshell. IT WAS AN ACCIDENT. and to say people who drive and use a
> cell phone should be fined. well . BS .. I've been using a cell phone and
> driving since they first came out. ya know the BIG OLD phones in your car
> bag.. I haven't hit anyone yet. . OH WAIT.. I think it's because I CAN
> MULTITASK.. Now dumbass's that can't chew gum and walk at the same time.
> well Duhh Maybe they shouldn't be driving and talking on a cell phone.. I
> truely don't believe everyone should suffer because of a few idiots..

let's
> face it .. i see idiots on cell phones riding bikes. not paying attention.
> let's fine them to. and LORD KNOWS how many morons I've seen WALKING and
> talking on a cell phone. Just walking into traffic or crossing the side
> street not looking. Now were gonna fine anyone using a cell phone NOT
> sitting down .. . it's simple People.. YOU SCREW UP. TAKE RESPONSIBLITY..
> doesn't mean everyone else needs to suffer. It's no more simplier than
> that.
> Kinda like all those damn gun laws over 22,000 in the USA.. I mean come

on.
> 22,000 + . wouldnt 1 gun law work? YOU commit a crime with a gun. YOU get
> an AUTOMATIC GO TO JAIL for 20 years and NO more guns for you. Period!!
> Now using a cell phone and causing an accident is NOT a crime per say . I
> mean I saw people in here saying SHE should NOT be allowed to every drive
> again, she should not be allowed to use a cell phone ever again. WONDEFUL

if
> she INTENTIONALLY go into a car. and on her cell phone to RUN SOMEONE DOWN
> on purpose.. I realize all your folks throwing stones NEVER EVER caused

an
> accident doing something Careless .. and I wish the rest of us were as

good
> as you. But come. OK.. I'm done venting. after reading all those comments

I
> had to say something LOL
>
>
>
 
On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 17:36:13 GMT, "John Emmons"
<[email protected]> wrote:


>Dragging gun laws into the debate is simply a red herring, if the person in
>question had been say at a firing range, not paying attention to what she
>was doing and "accidentally" shot someone, she would be tried for
>manslaughter or even possibly murder in the 2nd degree, that is what she was
>doing with her far more lethal weapons of choice, her car and her cell
>phone.
>
>John E.


Not quite true. Our VP shot a guy in the face and wasn't charged with
anything. One would have to say that shooting someone in the face is
proof that they weren't paying attention.

Here in NYC we just had a case where a guy drove the wrong way on a
highway and killed two people. Then he had the nerve to argue that he
wasn't drunk. To me, that just makes it worse. Then he drove the wrong
way on purpose.
 
dgk wrote:
>
> On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 17:36:13 GMT, "John Emmons"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Dragging gun laws into the debate is simply a red herring, if the person in
> >question had been say at a firing range, not paying attention to what she
> >was doing and "accidentally" shot someone, she would be tried for
> >manslaughter or even possibly murder in the 2nd degree, that is what she was
> >doing with her far more lethal weapons of choice, her car and her cell
> >phone.
> >
> >John E.

>
> Not quite true. Our VP shot a guy in the face and wasn't charged with
> anything. One would have to say that shooting someone in the face is
> proof that they weren't paying attention.
>
> Here in NYC we just had a case where a guy drove the wrong way on a
> highway and killed two people. Then he had the nerve to argue that he
> wasn't drunk. To me, that just makes it worse. Then he drove the wrong
> way on purpose.


Not that we're interested in the whole stories, but your snippets have
little bearing on anything.

Notan
 
"dgk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 17:36:13 GMT, "John Emmons"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Dragging gun laws into the debate is simply a red herring, if the person
>>in
>>question had been say at a firing range, not paying attention to what she
>>was doing and "accidentally" shot someone, she would be tried for
>>manslaughter or even possibly murder in the 2nd degree, that is what she
>>was
>>doing with her far more lethal weapons of choice, her car and her cell
>>phone.
>>
>>John E.

>
> Not quite true. Our VP shot a guy in the face and wasn't charged with
> anything. One would have to say that shooting someone in the face is
> proof that they weren't paying attention.


You have obviously never hunted with a shotgun with a group of people. A
person who "disappears" to get a better shot 50 years away can easily be
mistaken for something edible. Whatever you think of Cheney, that was an
accident. And even if it were due to negligence who was going to snitch on
him? He was with a party of friends and the victim, who was barely
scratched, did not even consider pressing charges.

Had Cheney been firing away while talking to his stockbroker on his cell
phone, then I say hang the guy.
 
"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> 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.


Situation: I can't legally turn left from northbound on 3rd Ave on to
Madison at rush hour. . 4th Ave has much denser traffic (3rd is buses or
bikes only), and is steeper than 3rd, so I don't consider it an alternative.
2nd is one-way the other way. The entrance to the garage for the building
where I work is on Madison. Madison itself is incredibly steep (probably
lose 40' of elevation in that half block), and one way.

I dismount and walk through the intersection, then continue down to the
garage entrance.

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky
 
Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:

> You have obviously never hunted with a shotgun with a group of people.


I certainly have too...

> A person who "disappears" to get a better shot 50 years away can easily be
> mistaken for something edible.


Not at all what happened according to reports.

> Whatever you think of Cheney, that was an
> accident. And even if it were due to negligence who was going to snitch on
> him? He was with a party of friends and the victim, who was barely
> scratched, did not even consider pressing charges.


A good deal worse than barely scratched: (USA Today, starting quote
from a Ms. Armstrong, property owner):

"The vice president didn't see him," she said. "The covey flushed and
the vice president picked out a bird and was following it and shot. And
by god [sic], Harry was in the line of fire and got peppered pretty
good."

Armstrong said the shotgun pellets broke the skin.

"It knocked him silly. But he was fine. He was talking. His eyes were
open. It didn't get in his eyes or anything like that," she said.

The accident was not reported publicly by the vice president's office
for nearly 24 hours, and then only after it was reported by the Corpus
Christi Caller-Times on its website Sunday.

McBride said the vice president's office did not tell reporters about
the accident Saturday because they were deferring to Armstrong to
handle the announcement of what happened on her property.

Armstrong said everyone at the ranch was so "focused" on Whittington's
health Saturday that it wasn't until Sunday she called the Caller-Times
to report the accident. Her ranch is about 60 miles southwest of Corpus
Christi.

Sally Whittington told The Dallas Morning News her father was being
observed because of swelling from some of the welts on his neck. His
face "looks like chicken pox, kind of," she said. (end quote)

His observation was being carried out in the Intensive Care Unit. Loved
the small-g God thing. USA Today, always vigilant!

More, from a different source ( Wiki,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Whittington ):

<On February 11, 2006, Whittington, a Bush-Cheney campaign contributor,
was accidentally shot and injured by U.S. Vice President **** Cheney
during a quail hunting trip, at a ranch in south Texas owned by
Katharine Armstrong. Armstrong is heavily involved in lobbying, mostly
with Republicans. Most of the damage from the shotgun blast was to the
right side of his body, including damage to his face, chest, and neck.
He was taken to Corpus Christi Memorial Hospital by ambulance.
Armstrong stated that Whittington was shot when Cheney was shooting at
a covey of birds. She also says that Whittington did not alert Cheney
to his location and was simply caught in the middle. The Kenedy County
Sheriff's office has cleared Cheney of any criminal wrongdoing in the
matter [2].
On February 14, hospital officials revealed that some of the lead
birdshot lodged in Whittington's heart caused a minor heart attack [3].
Doctors do not plan to remove all the pellets from Whittington's body.
They are not certain how many pellets are lodged in Whittington's body,
but estimated there are "less than 150 or 200." [4] [5]
Whittington was discharged from the hospital on February 17, 2006.>

"Lodged in the heart". A mighty deep scratch! "Armstrong heavily
involved in lobbying with Republicans". Six days in the hospital...

There were other quotes from various stories, such as "comes with the
territory" and "this happens in quail hunting". Aside from the
attempted first-line cover-up, of course.

So: Are you on the payroll ("barely scratched") or donating your time
for the cause?

My family were all hunters and fishermen. Shooting someone would indeed
have been an act of great shame-- Rule #1: Be sure of what you're
shooting at! ("Don't turn around to follow birds", which apparently is
what Cheney did, as Whittington was reportedly catching back up to the
shooting group after picking up a dead bird.)

Cheney admitted to "having a beer at lunch" (you may google for
confirmation). Drinking *anything* alcoholic in any amount before the
hunting day is over? Totally irresponsible, in terms of judgement and
eyesight acuity, especially for an older person. No alcohol blood tests
were taken, by report.

> Had Cheney been firing away while talking to his stockbroker on his cell
> phone, then I say hang the guy.


Nice try at further deflection. Had Cheney learned about shooting in
the military (fire zones), since he obviously didn't get any early
training at home, this "accident" wouldn't have happened. Well, as he
said, he had better things to do...

http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=list&category= NEWS; Chickenhawks

or the same in TinyURL: http://tinyurl.com/qkor

Thanks for your time. --D-y
 
Mark Hickey wrote:
> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Ed Pirrero wrote:

>
> >> Have you ever had a driver shout "advice" to you about bicycles and
> >> traffic law? If so, have they ever been right? (If not, then count
> >> yourself lucky.)

> >
> >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.

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!
 
dgk wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 17:36:13 GMT, "John Emmons"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> >Dragging gun laws into the debate is simply a red herring, if the person in
> >question had been say at a firing range, not paying attention to what she
> >was doing and "accidentally" shot someone, she would be tried for
> >manslaughter or even possibly murder in the 2nd degree, that is what she was
> >doing with her far more lethal weapons of choice, her car and her cell
> >phone.
> >
> >John E.

>
> Not quite true. Our VP shot a guy in the face and wasn't charged with
> anything....


I believe the critical words here are "Vice President".

The judicial system is not blind, with outcomes often depending more on
privilege, wealth and race than then available facts.

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> writes:
> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Ed Pirrero wrote:

>
>>> Have you ever had a driver shout "advice" to you about bicycles and
>>> traffic law? If so, have they ever been right? (If not, then count
>>> yourself lucky.)

>>
>>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).


Ed Pirrero's description of his local bike path is reminiscent
to me of our own BC Parkway/7-Eleven Trail, especially through
Burnaby, BC. It's a multi-use path that more-or-less parallels
our SkyTrain light rail transit system, and indeed a 15 kmh/
10 mph speed limit is applied on it. Where the path crosses
certain streets, riders are met with a bollard in the middle
of the path and a sign that exhorts riders to dismount and
pedestriate across the street.

Of course nobody does, and Burnaby drivers are so well
socialized that they stop at the sight of anybody with
a bike anyway -- either out of courtesy, or from the
fearful expecation that the rider will heedlessly bolt
through, across their line. In fact if a rider does
the "right" thing, dismounts and yields to motorized
cross-traffic, it results in a hesitation waltz of:
"After you." "No, after you." So you might as well
just go (with a thank you wave,) and spare everybody
the delay.

Actually I find the BC Parkway useful for bypassing
a certain mega-mall and the Central Blvd/Imperial St
junction on my way to New Westminster and points east.
And it had some good blackberry picking before it got
housing-developed. It still has some spectacular views
overlooking the Fraser River, out to the Georgia Strait
islands, and even Mt Baker on a clear day.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
 
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.

--
Michael Press
 
"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.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
 
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.


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.

E.P.
 
"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).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
 

Similar threads