Woman braindead after being hit by ciclist riding in car lane

[JulesMaximus]

I am thinking is he saw her and had time to yell for her to get out of the way he had time to stop.

Not necessarily. I've hit speeds of up to 48mph downhill on my road bike, even if he was going half that speed it would take a good distance to stop because the contact patch of the tires is so tiny.

This is tragic no doubt but I wouldn't place blame on the cyclist. Nobody would intentionally run into a person while on a bicycle if he could avoid it. I'm sure he tried to stop.

The OP is an idiot.

 

[JulesMaximus]

It's not clear who had the light. Those crosswalks in Central Park have lights to control vehicle and bike traffic versus pedestrians crossing.

Edit:
There is a NYP article that says he was riding a 'brakeless triathlon bike'. If he truly had no brakes, what a moron - even if he did have the right of way. All bicycles operated on a public roadway should have brakes, a bell, and lights (the latter for after dark).

At the same time, if the NYPD are going to be consistent in this case compared to their vehicle vs. pedestrian cases, this guy might just walk away with only a ticket. Rarely are charges brought up against drivers for killing pedestrians.

One look at the picture in the article debunks this. The bike in the photo has brakes.

https://twitter.com/connortryan/status/512777547365355520/photo/1

 

[werepossum]

The premise of the OP - that it's due to the biker being in a car lane rather than bike lane, is idiotic. Or, is there some city somewhere that has teleportation for people across bike lanes, but crosswalks across car lanes?

It sucks, but if it was a car that hit her, it wouldn't even be news, and you wouldn't be posting this vitriol. You wouldn't be calling the driver Michael Schumacher wannabe.
What sometimes happens is people ignore the bicyclist when they would have stopped for the car. They make a turn right into a biker's path, there was a lady killed recently in my area when a driver did that. The guy saw her, but assumed it was OK to go right in front of her and let her deal with it. Same with pedestrians, when they enter for crosswalk, they will wake sure a car sees them and wait for car to stop before proceeding, but they see biker going at same speed, and they will just go and let the biker deal with it, even though biker doesn't have same braking ability that a car does.
Well guess what, if you do that to me, I will do my best to brake, I have no interest in being in an accident and risking injury to myself or someone else, no matter how stupid they are. But if it's too late, I will brace myself to minimize injuries to me. That means turning my body so you get hit by my shoulder or elbow. I am not going to increase risk to my soft tissue and internal organs to make it cushy for you. So you are effectively getting hit by a 200lb mass with surface area of a brick going at 15 mph. I wish you the best, but at that point, whatever happens is going to happen.

Both good points. Motorcyclists have the same problem - we're much narrower than cars so we aren't subconsciously perceived as an immediate threat. And we're a LOT heavier, faster and harder than a bicyclist.

 

[brycejones]

Posting in a mouth breathing whack job Spatiallyaware thread.

 

[senseamp]

I am not a fan of time trial style handlebars in urban settings, the forward position doesn't give you much leverage and control when braking or steering hard, since you are liable to go over the handlebars. Probably why his bike held up so well, he may have gone over handlebars on the way to hitting this lady.

 

[IGBT]

bikes need to be registered and insured / display a license plate just like any other vehicle on the road. I routinely see them blowing thru red lights / signals / illegal lane changes. They are by and large the most reckless vehicle operators on the road.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Why would you assume he's talking about all cyclists rather than the one cyclist we're talking about? THIS GUY needed to follow the rules of the road. All cyclists need to follow the rules of the road. That's just common sense and does not imply that most or all cyclists are not following the rules of the road.

He did not assume a damned thing. OP did more than imply an entire group does not follow the rules. Did you even read the OP?

This poor woman was crossing the road via crosswalk as she was creamed by yet another mouth breathing lance armstrong wanna-be ciclist.

http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Fairfield-woman-hit-by-bicycle-in-NYC-s-Central-5765942.php

Just another example of why ciclists in the car lanes is not a solution.

It's really no wonder that many cities and residents are fed up with these mouth breathing ciclists.

We build them bike lanes (paid for via vehicle tax/tag/licensing) to get them off the road and they insist on riding in the roadway because pebbles bend their delicate wheels and non lance armstrongs hold up their olympic training sessions.

It's really no wonder why these people get no respect on the road. Between blazing through redlights, intentionally and needlessly holding up traffic, refusing to brake when needed... This is what happens when an entire group behaves this way.

 

[senseamp]

bikes need to be registered and insured / display a license plate just like any other vehicle on the road. I routinely see them blowing thru red lights / signals / illegal lane changes. They are by and large the most reckless vehicle operators on the road.

Should pedestrians be registered and insured too? They can cause accidents too, you know.

 

[Attic]

It's not clear who had the light. Those crosswalks in Central Park have lights to control vehicle and bike traffic versus pedestrians crossing.

Edit:
There is a NYP article that says he was riding a 'brakeless triathlon bike'. If he truly had no brakes, what a moron - even if he did have the right of way. All bicycles operated on a public roadway should have brakes, a bell, and lights (the latter for after dark).

At the same time, if the NYPD are going to be consistent in this case compared to their vehicle vs. pedestrian cases, this guy might just walk away with only a ticket. Rarely are charges brought up against drivers for killing pedestrians.

Would make sense, accidents are rarely just one bad thing coming together, it's usually a multitude of bad luck/poor decisions coming together. WTG to the bicyclists for riding around much closer to possible accidents by not having brakes (if true).

 

[ch33zw1z]

bikes need to be registered and insured / display a license plate just like any other vehicle on the road. I routinely see them blowing thru red lights / signals / illegal lane changes. They are by and large the most reckless vehicle operators on the road.

yea right, drunk drivers are. followed closely by road raging dickheads.

edit: I'm not even debating the registered, insured, and licensing aspect...I don't think that's unreasonable in a metro area. But "by and large most reckless", you're fooling yourself.

 

[Brainonska511]

One look at the picture in the article debunks this. The bike in the photo has brakes.

https://twitter.com/connortryan/status/512777547365355520/photo/1

Okay. So it's just the NYP being the NYP.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Would make sense, accidents are rarely just one bad thing coming together, it's usually a multitude of bad luck/poor decisions coming together. WTG to the bicyclists for riding around much closer to possible accidents by not having brakes (if true).

It isn't.

Okay. So it's just the NYP being the NYP.

Pretty much. One look at the pic proves otherwise.

 

[glenn1]

Would make sense, accidents are rarely just one bad thing coming together, it's usually a multitude of bad luck/poor decisions coming together. WTG to the bicyclists for riding around much closer to possible accidents by not having brakes (if true).

This is how bike lanes should be. Physically separated from both vehicular traffic and pedestrians. Then car drivers and bicyclists can just be assholes to each other and fuck over their own kind. If you're in the separated bike lane when you want to exit the roadway you either dismount and cross at a pedestrian crosswalk or build flyover offramps. Agree with forcing bicyclists to carry at-fault collision insurance or sign legal paperwork that they're self-insuring so they can pay for damages to cars when they're at fault.

Finally, IMHO fines should be raised considerably for bicyclists breaking traffic laws like blowing through stop lights since other enforcement methods like red light cameras don't work. I believe the fine is $270ish currently; this should be quadrupled to $1,000.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Another pic from another article. Bike has both front and rear brakes.

Again, no cyclist would intentionally slam into a pedestrian.

SpecialUnderwear is a cyclist hating moron.

 

[cubby1223]

It isn't.

Pretty much. One look at the pic proves otherwise.

Not trying to add too much clutter to the image, the truth of the brakes are in-between. Yea they are there. But not easily accessible. Triathlon bikes are not meant to be ridden like that through heavy traffic.

 

[ch33zw1z]

This is how bike lanes should be. Physically separated from both vehicular traffic and pedestrians. Then car drivers and bicyclists can just be assholes to each other and fuck over their own kind. If you're in the separated bike lane when you want to exit the roadway you either dismount and cross at a pedestrian crosswalk or build flyover offramps. Agree with forcing bicyclists to carry at-fault collision insurance or sign legal paperwork that they're self-insuring so they can pay for damages to cars when they're at fault.

Finally, IMHO fines should be raised considerably for bicyclists breaking traffic laws like blowing through stop lights since other enforcement methods like red light cameras don't work. I believe the fine is $270ish currently; this should be quadrupled to $1,000.

If I lived in a metro area, I'd gladly pay registraion and licensing if it got a bike path like that. pretty sweet.

 

[shira]

She was in the crosswalk, he should be charged like any other road user would.

The article is limited on details, and the title is misleading since her condition isn't actually known yet.

Yes, the article is limited in the details it provides. And it's NOT true that if she was in the crosswalk Marshall necessarily should be charged. For example, she might have stepped into the crosswalk just as the bicyclist was about to cross it. Pedestrians are required to look to make sure that when they enter a crosswalk they give traffic sufficient time to stop.

I can easily imagine a scenario where a bicyclist is unable to stop fast enough and screams "Get out of the way!" just before impact.

So I'd hold off on judging this case until all the facts are known.

 

[ch33zw1z]

So I'd hold off on judging this case until all the facts are known.

You sir, are just no fun.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Not trying to add too much clutter to the image, the truth of the brakes are in-between. Yea they are there. But not easily accessible. Triathlon bikes are not meant to be ridden like that through heavy traffic.

He was riding in Central Park, not in heavy traffic. Have you ever ridden a tri-bike? It takes no time at all to go to the hoods to apply brakes.

Seems like just a bad situation all around. I don't blame the cyclist.

 

[xBiffx]

The premise of the OP - that it's due to the biker being in a car lane rather than bike lane, is idiotic. Or, is there some city somewhere that has teleportation for people across bike lanes, but crosswalks across car lanes?

I hear they float in San Francisco. Close to teleportation. :sneaky:

 

[TreVader]

I'm not a fan of cyclists personally but they have every right to be there as any idiot on a scooter or whatever other ridiculous thing people bring on the road.


Back when riding "longboard" skateboards was cool I would regularly wonder how it was possible they weren't all dead. I think that's what happened actually. They didn't become unpopular, everybody who rode them got run over.


Nobody was up in arms to ban those idiotic things.

 

[IGBT]

Should pedestrians be registered and insured too? They can cause accidents too, you know.

your obama care has you on the dole for that. no escape.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Like many lance armstrong wanna-bes he he had non or partially functioning brakes.

These road bikes cannot stop on a dime. They certainly can't stop quickly enough to stop from running over a little child or person crossing the road.

Stupid comment, like this thread. A car or motorcycle can't stop on a dime either.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Damned thug cyclist!!!!

 

[RampantAndroid]

Like many lance armstrong wanna-bes he he had non or partially functioning brakes.

These road bikes cannot stop on a dime. They certainly can't stop quickly enough to stop from running over a little child or person crossing the road.

Road bikes ARE limited brake wise....compared to say, a mountain bike with disc brakes. But on my old mountain bike I had when I was a teenager with rim brakes, it stops well enough. But I didn't (and don't) bomb through roads with traffic unless I'm crossing lanes of traffic to make it into a turn lane...

Ciclists yield for no one. They are the most elitest bestest thing on the world, pedaling with the head held high and spandex wedged tightly into buttcrack. They rule the road.

Just read the replies in these threads. Hell even when a brakeless mouth breathing ciclist mows some poor old lady over in a crosswalk the nutters are still able to defend the ciclist.

...and I signal, stop at reds, if I'm on the sidewalk (I don't like to be, but I am sometimes) I wait for the crosswalk to light up.


You were saying?

It isn't.

Pretty much. One look at the pic proves otherwise.

To play devil's advocate...the levers are also the shifters and so have to remain on. He could well have removed the brake pads or had non-functional brakes...however unlikely that might be.

He also has clipless peddles, making him less likely to WANT to stop since stopping/not falling over requires some planning.


My question: he was about to peg a pedestrian going full speed ahead: he SHOULD have grounded himself to save her - why didn't he?