Motorist Convicted of Assault and Other Charges After Run in with Cyclists

[paintmered]

My five mile work commute is absolutely ideal for biking. But as far ahead of the curve Dayton is on biking, it's largely confined to bike trails and no the surface streets. So for me to bike to work involves a 1.5 mile stretch of riding on a narrow 2-lane road with a 50 mph speed limit. I tried it once. Never again. The good news is that there's a master plan for Dayton to make it more bike friendly and that stretch of road is one of the highest priorities for alteration.

Cincinnati is actively trying to become more bicycle friendly. A few months ago, they painted a bunch of "sharrows" on surface streets. It's a start and I do see more bicyclists around Clifton when I'm down there compared to a few years ago.

And all the tight fitting clothing is not to make us look hard core. It's all functional.

[Yachtzee]

I don't have a problem with cyclists, but I agree with the guy in this story on this point: Ride single file when you're on a road with no bike pathes.

Nothing is more aggrevating, as a driver, than getting stuck behind a pack of 10-20 cyclists who are bunched up, riding 4-5 across and taking up the entire road at speeds well below the limit on the road. It's especially dangerous on windy roads, where there are very few opportunities for a driver to pass safely in the oncoming lane. Respect the fact that not everyone is out for a leisurely drive and might have somewhere to be that is inconvenienced by being forced to do 15 MPH in a 45 MPH zone.

Oh yeah, and unless you're riding competitively, lose the form-fitting getup. You look ridiculous in it.

That's the problem I have in my area, which is ideally suited for cyclists. In fact, we have bike lanes painted on the roads, but sometimes you get these huge packs of cyclists riding together in a giant blob, refusing to stay in the bike lanes. They'll file up when you get to them, but it still takes them a while to get back into the bike lane.

I'd agree with the get-ups too. While there is function to the form, there's no need to go out and get that Tour-de-France replica for a bike through the Cuyahoga Valley National Park. Sometimes I dream of getting on a bike and flying by those people covered in logos in a homemade Cutters shirt.

[camisadelgolf]

I think more people should cycle, and I think the city should make more efforts to make it easier for cyclists to ride here, but one thing that bugs me as much as anything is when I see someone riding a bicycle and holding up traffic in Loveland and isn't on the bike trail.

[Dom Heffner]

Just never understood why bikers/joggers insist on using roads designed for motor vehicles.

I'm not talking about country roads or subdivisions.

I'm talking Beechmont Avenue and other roads that just aren't designed for vehicles plus pedestrians.

Best way to not get hit is stay off the road. I run 20 miles a week. I work out. And I don't do any of it on the street.

Why should people be put in danger because someone insists on using a busy street for exercise.

If a car goes 2 mph down the street it is a safety hazard- if a jogger does it, he has the right of way and I need to be more careful.

I think joggers and cyclists should employ the Mr. Myagi method of avoiding being hit: don't be there.

Roads were made because of and for motor vehicle travel. Engineers were not thinking about bicyclists- if they were, they'd have been made wider to accomodate them.

[westofyou]

Roads were made because of and for motor vehicle travel. Engineers were not thinking about bicyclists- if they were, they'd have been made wider to accomodate them.

Actually not everywhere is a road designed just for autos.

Nor should it be. Some communities recognize that and instead of saying, no way they find a way.

[schmidty622]

Actually, no, the doctor would be liable. It all comes down to the intent, though.

Depends on how long the vehicle had been in front of the bikes. If he had just past them, got in front of them, and right away slammed on his breaks then yes, he is at fault. If he was in front of them for any significant amount of time and hit his breaks and they hit him, then they would be liable for his damages. A vehicle following another vehicle has a duty to maintain assured clear distance, meaning that they give themselves enough time to stop in the event that the vehicle in front of them has to hit the breaks. In terms of legal liability a cyclist has to obey the rules of the road just like any motorized vehicle.

In this case it sounds like the former occurred.

A question to bikers though; why isn't the sidewalk an option?

[GIDP]

Ive almost hit bikers while driving at night time. Im honestly surprised I havent hit one before.

[Spazzrico]

A question to bikers though; why isn't the sidewalk an option?

The main reasons are that it is illegal and even more dangerous. When you've been riding a lot you get a sense of why it is dangerous. I only do it in areas where the road is more unsafe, or if I get stuck at night without my lights to let the motorists see me.

Here's a pretty good explanation.

[westofyou]

A question to bikers though; why isn't the sidewalk an option?

Because it's against the law, period and just as dangerous to kids and older folks as cars are to bikes

[schmidty622]

Didn't know it was illigal as I don't care to ride. Thanks for the info.

[wolfboy]

Roads were made because of and for motor vehicle travel.

Uh, not really.

This is an interesting read on jaywalking, but it touches on many of the same themes throughout this thread: whether the roads were designed with cars in mind, attitudes versus pedestrians(cyclists), and public policy toward our roads.

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.co...-the-beholder/

For me, when you strip down the argument to its core, you have convenience on one side and safety on the other. Drivers don't want to be inconvenienced, cyclists just want to be safe.

[dougdirt]

Because it's against the law, period and just as dangerous to kids and older folks as cars are to bikes

And yet I have NEVER once been asked to get off the sidewalk because I was riding my bike on it. Been riding for 15+ years. And in no way, shape or form is me riding my bike on a sidewalk more dangerous to kids/old people as cars are to bikes. If I hit a person going full speed on my bike, odds are pretty good that no one is dying. Odds are pretty good that if a car hits a bike going full speed its going to be very, very ugly. Top it off with bikes have more manueverability than cars, are much smaller thus taking up less room and in most cases can stop much quicker than a car can. Sorry, but your its more dangerous claim just doesn't hold water.

[SandyD]

People ride bikes for a lot of reasons. Transportation, recreation, exercise, and serious training. Riding on the sidewalks or side streets you can't get up sufficient speed for exercise and serious training. There are more stop signs, and cars parked on the side of the street can block the view of both the cyclist and cars backing out of driveways. Transportation? You can't get anywhere here without travelling on a major road/busy street.

In my neighborhood even the exercise walkers, joggers, runners use the street rather than the sidewalk. And some of the dog walkers. (those with big dogs that have to be controlled tightly by the leash, anyway.)

I don't my bicyclists on the road as long as they obey the traffic laws. I may get momentarily annoyed when a bike and I are going to arrive at an intersection where I'm going to make a right turn at about the same time. But I get over that.

Unfortunately, there are not enough bike trails, bike lanes in my area at least. Most of the walking trails in the parks forbid bikes.

[westofyou]

And yet I have NEVER once been asked to get off the sidewalk because I was riding my bike on it. Been riding for 15+ years. And in no way, shape or form is me riding my bike on a sidewalk more dangerous to kids/old people as cars are to bikes. If I hit a person going full speed on my bike, odds are pretty good that no one is dying. Odds are pretty good that if a car hits a bike going full speed its going to be very, very ugly. Top it off with bikes have more manueverability than cars, are much smaller thus taking up less room and in most cases can stop much quicker than a car can. Sorry, but your its more dangerous claim just doesn't hold water.

Do you live in a city?

Because I do and they ticket people for riding on a sidewalk, all the time...plus when I ride I like to go over 10 miles an hour.

I know someone who was hit by a bike and died because of it, how's that shake your odds up?

[SunDeck]

Do you live in a city?

Because I do and they ticket people for riding on a sidewalk, all the time...plus when I ride I like to go over 10 miles an hour.

I know someone who was hit by a bike and died because of it, how's that shake your odds up?

Some cities enforce it, others don't. I used to have to jump onto the sidewalk all the time in Cincinnati because the lanes in Clifton are narrow and there are a lot of cars. People just didn't have the ability to give up the room to me.

The real problem is that public policy and planning treats bikes the same as cars. In Europe, some countries carve out a space on the sidewalk for bikes in recognition that A) they are different than cars and B) they are a legitimate form of transportation. In the US, neither consideration is made, so instead we get poorly planned bike lanes (right in the path of opening car doors here in Bloomington) and laws requiring motorists to treat bikes like cars, which they are clearly not.