Another Victory for Seattle Cyclists

[Jeff Higgins]

Cyclist killed days before city to upgrade notorious bike lane | Local News | The Seattle Times

Yet another poor Seattle bicyclist takes one for the team, in the name of cyclists' "rights". Rather unceremoniously killed by a delivery truck while riding her bike, well within an established, legal bike lane. An established, legal bike lane that is affectionately known within Seattle cycling circles as "the lane of death."

This particular street, our 2nd Avenue, is a steep downhill one-way to the waterfront. This bike lane runs down its left side, and cycling traffic has the right-of-way. It's steep enough to be able to really haul some ass...

So, in this particular case, a delivery truck turns left into a business to make a delivery and collides with the overtaking cyclist. So, the question is - in what sane world do we compel turning traffic to turn across a through lane? A through lane that we have given the right-of-way?

Cyclists' "rights", in this case, have well and truly trumped plain old common sense. Nowhere else would we expect to see this level of absurdity, where a turning lane crosses a through lane, with no controls of any kind. What sort of people come up with this nonsense? Whoever they are, the blood of this poor young lady (and many more like here), is on their hands.

[Por_sha911]

Seems like bad engineering. In the meantime, I wonder if the cyclist was "haulin ass" above the legal limit. I also wonder if she was proactively watching out for danger. Even if you are in the right, in an accident you still lose. I'm not blaming her but there may be choices that could have saved her life.

[widebody911]

Common sense and physics trump any and all laws.

Did the truck actually hit her or was she haulin' ass and smashed into the truck?

[john70t]

If he was in the right lane on the freeway doing 55mph, crossed lanes without looking to enter a legal median turnaround and side-swiped someone in the passing lane hauling butt, the driver would be at fault.

Failure to yield to overtaking traffic.
Simple as that.
It could have been a jogger on the sidewalk doing 25mph which he didn't see.

I'm guessing your gripe is either with:
1). Nincompoop traffic engineers who still can't design/sign roadage worth crap.
Or,
2). Bicyclists having same rights as motor vehicles.

[Por_sha911]

No gripe. I just don't automatically assign the blame to the one that survived. For instance, a gun instructor gets killed when a nine year old girl can't handle an Uzi. The girl was not to blame.

[Nickshu]

I am a cyclist, and a very experienced one at that. I have found that many cyclists scoff at the rules of the road when riding, but are quick to claim they have the same rights as cars whenever something like this comes up (the same laws they blow-off when riding). Blowing off stop signs, riding up to the front of the car line at stop lights, blasting past cars trying to turn right while riding parallel in the bike lane, the list goes on.

What happened here is very sad, nonetheless. I don't know what the solution is short of licensing cyclists as drivers and enforcing a bicycle police, which is not realistic.

I rarely ride on the road anymore. I was on the US National Road Cycling team in 1993. I have had too many friends killed, paralyzed, or permanently injured in other ways in car vs. bike accidents.

My point is this is a two way street, it's not just the drivers who own the problem, it's 50/50 in my opinion.

[john70t]

Originally Posted by Nickshu

My point is this is a two way street, it's not just the drivers who own the problem, it's 50/50 in my opinion.

I agree with your points.
I was once involved in a bicycle accident. Some kid on an adrenaline high was blasting down a sidewalk (wrong way) at about 25-30mph. I looked right, left, pulled out, right, and threw it into reverse. Too late. He skidded for 3-5 seconds and rolled across my hood instead of becoming a pancake. Jumped up, swore at me with fists, grabbed his bike, and took off again. He was ok. Left me with a trashed fender.

This isn't about stupid cyclists.
This is about infringing on a cyclist's legal right to navigate a government-designated transit lane.

[cashflyer]

Originally Posted by john70t

This is about infringing on a cyclist's legal right to navigate a government-designated transit lane.

The government collects a user fee from me in the form of taxes at the gas pump.
Why should cyclists have a 'right' to free access to roads?

[5String43]

The government collects a user fee from me in the form of taxes at the gas pump.
Why should cyclists have a 'right' to free access to roads?

^ This, +9,000

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by john70t

This isn't about stupid cyclists.

It absolutely is. And about their stupid representatives on the city council that approved of this madness.

Again, under no other circumstances do we see left turns not just allowed, but mandated from anywhere but the furthest left lane(s). Nowhere else do we see through lanes that must be crossed by turning traffic. It takes a special kind of stupidity to make this happen - bicyclist appeasement stupidity.

And no, your freeway analogy does not even come close to approximating this situation. A situation where as one slows down (or even stops) to turn, one must be aware of overtaking traffic in the direction in which one is turning. Sheer insanity.

[john70t]

Originally Posted by cashflyer

The government collects a user fee from me in the form of taxes at the gas pump.
Why should cyclists have a 'right' to free access to roads?

Going back well before the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, interstates and local road systems were designed 99% for use by cars only, but taxes for maintaining and patrolling were paid for by all citizens, including the cyclists without cars.
It's a subsidy.

Despite their tax contributions to roads, cyclists get pushed off to the side into the gravel with few protections from the dangers of traveling on public thoroughfares. Maybe a line drawn in some sections if they are lucky.
There is no equal access.

Then there is the argument for usage fees:
Q:Who causes the most damage to public roads? A:Heavy vehicles.
But registration and/or insurance isn't based on GVWR as it should, so all drivers pay and subsidized the biggest heavies on the road.
Bicycles are..cough..a bump in the road in terms of wear 'n tear.

[john70t]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

And no, your freeway analogy does not even come close to approximating this situation. A situation where as one slows down (or even stops) to turn, one must be aware of overtaking traffic in the direction in which one is turning. Sheer insanity.

If a driver pulls into the passing lane or turns through pedestrians he must yield.
This case scenario is not too different, is it?

In terms of appeasement and moral high ground, public streets have a maximum speed limit whenever applicable.
There is no minimum speed guaranteed by law.

Unless someone is fully stopped and boxed in(unlawful detainment/kidnapping), they can choose to turn around and go a different route, or just slow down and wait it out a few seconds.
New cars are quite cushy these days, so I've heard....heated seats, A/C, radio, bluetooth phone.
Sitting 10 more seconds isn't going to hurt any driver, externally.
Only the drivers frustration will hurt him.

Until new vehicles(non-police) come with an optional 'CLEAR THE ROAD' button, we just have to suffer and adapt.

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by cashflyer

The government collects a user fee from me in the form of taxes at the gas pump.
Why should cyclists have a 'right' to free access to roads?

Gasoline Taxes and User Fees Pay for Only Half of State & Local Road Spending | Tax Foundation

[Rusty Heap]

take another pain pill Jeff, you typing wrist won't be sore if you'd elevate it more.

[jyl]

As posted above, and as I've verified by researching the budget sources in my city, gas taxes and vehicle fees pay only a part of the cost of building and maintaining roads. In the case of local (city) streets, often much less than half. The bulk of funding comes from general taxes that everyone pays. So the argument that only car drivers pay for roads and thus only only drivers have the right to use roads, is ignorant B.S..

This sort of bike lane is an example of a road situation where drivers have to look and proceed only when safe. There are many other examples - indeed, every driveway and every uncontrolled intersection is such a situation. The driver who turns without checking mirrors is at fault.

That said, bike riders should ride more defensively than I often see them do. This was not a Lotus that suddenly whipped left without slowing, it was a delivery truck and as such it certainly braked and slowed sharply before making the 90 degree left turn. The cyclist should have been watching for those danger signs.

My personal practice on a bike is that I do not allow a car to be next to me when I'm passing a driveway or entering an intersection. I hit the brakes if necessary. It sucks to lose momentum, but that's part of defensive riding. I've been riding bicycles in city traffic since I was 7 or 8. I've never hit or been hit by a car or pedestrian. Never been doored, or right hooked. It is possible to ride safely in the city. You have to adopt a motorcycle-like paranoia. Just as many drivers float along in inattentively, some cyclists ride that way too.

[slodave]

Originally Posted by cashflyer

The government collects a user fee from me in the form of taxes at the gas pump.
Why should cyclists have a 'right' to free access to roads?

Because the cyclists pay at the pump too. The majority have cars...

[cashflyer]

Originally Posted by john70t

But registration and/or insurance isn't based on GVWR as it should, so all drivers pay and subsidized the biggest heavies on the road.

Bull. I owned a small O/O trucking company, and the registration fees and the road taxes I paid on heavy trucks were absolutely higher than any car.

Originally Posted by slodave

Because the cyclists pay at the pump too. The majority have cars...

I am aware of that. So let them drive their cars, and quit impeding traffic.

Originally Posted by nostatic

Gasoline Taxes and User Fees Pay for Only Half of State & Local Road Spending | Tax Foundation

So, ~27% of road funding comes from general taxation. Show me a chart that shows exactly how much money one bicyclist contributed to the road funding, and why he should be allowed to impede everyone else on the road.

Most people are taught as children that they should not play in the road.
Bicycles belong in a bike lane, paid for by bicyclists. Or on a bike path.
Not on a highway.

[cashflyer]

What really puzzles me about the cyclists are how they say they have to be hyper-aware of their surroundings due to the dangers, yet seem to be completely oblivious to their surroundings when they have 13 cars behind them doing 2 miles per hour up a gentle hill. Of course we know they are not oblivious; they simply don't give a **** about faster traffic.

I'm entitled....
I have a right....

Please.

Just yesterday I saw two men on a dual bicycle exit a parking lot onto a 4-lane highway, without stopping. Just pulled out into traffic in front of a pickup and expected traffic to accommodate them. Nearly got hit because of that smug, sanctimonious mentality. The Ford should have given them both a bicycle enema.

[Brando]

When it comes to riding (bikes or motorcycles) believe another pelican put it as "You can be right, or You can be alive."

I would rather be alive.

When on 2 wheels you have to develop spacial awareness and defensive riding skills. Anticipate what other people on the road are going to do and make SAFE decisions based on that. Most people think "I'm on a bike so if they hit me it's their fault". But at what consequence?

[jyl]

Originally Posted by cashflyer

Bull. I owned a small O/O trucking company, and the registration fees and the road taxes I paid on heavy trucks were absolutely higher than any car.

I am aware of that. So let them drive their cars, and quit impeding traffic.
So, ~27% of road funding comes from general taxation. Show me a chart that shows exactly how much money one bicyclist contributed to the road funding, and why he should be allowed to impede everyone else on the road.

Most people are taught as children that they should not play in the road.
Bicycles belong in a bike lane, paid for by bicyclists. Or on a bike path.
Not on a highway.

The wear and tear on the roadway caused by a truck is far higher than that caused by a car. One 18 wheeler is equivalent to 9,600 cars. http://archive.gao.gov/f0302/109884.pdf From that point of view, your per-truck fees/taxes were far too low.

As for impeding traffic, a single vehicle may impede traffic hugely or not at all - think grandpa in his RV, grandma in her Olds, you in your trucks - so it doesn't make any sense to expect fees/taxes to be calibrated to how much a single driver in his vehicle impedes traffic. (Although then Porsche owners might pay zero.) You have to look at the impact of a class of vehicles. As a class, bicycles make very little contribution to traffic congestion and essentially none to road wear and tear, and they can reduce traffic congestion by taking cars off the road.

For example, one a given weekday in summer, very roughly 25,000 people bicycle commute into downtown Portland (appx 16,000 to 20,000 over bridges, the rest over land). That is 25,000 fewer cars clogging the streets and parking spaces. The drivers who grumble about bike commuters fail to consider how much slower the traffic would be with 25,000 more cars crammed into the streets.