On_The_3rd wrote:
Quote:

stillinjc wrote:
Quote:

On_The_3rd wrote:


If you can't see a human being traveling down the road sitting on top of two 29" wheels with their legs pumping up and down ? you probably just aren't doing your part as a responsible driver.

Not if it is dark. Reflective vests for bikers should be mandatory after dark. Bike lights should be enforced.

Let's go a step further and require and person who is out after dark to wear a reflective vest, you never know when you'll need to cross the street.

Have you ever woken up in the middle of the night to go to the bathroom? You know where you're going and how to get there, but you need to be MORE CAREFUL not to bump into anything, because, well? you know? it's dark.

stillinjc wrote:
Quote:

On_The_3rd wrote:


If you can't see a human being traveling down the road sitting on top of two 29" wheels with their legs pumping up and down ? you probably just aren't doing your part as a responsible driver.

Not if it is dark. Reflective vests for bikers should be mandatory after dark. Bike lights should be enforced.

On_The_3rd wrote:


If you can't see a human being traveling down the road sitting on top of two 29" wheels with their legs pumping up and down ? you probably just aren't doing your part as a responsible driver.

bodhipooh wrote:

Dude, please, oh please, quote when/where I clamored for a double standard, or that cyclists should not follow traffic rules. If you go through my previous history of posts on this topic, you will find that I am one of those cyclists that actually incurs the wrath of other cyclists for calling them out on not following the rules. As far as I am concerned, EVERYONE should follow the rules. Cyclists SHOULD stop at STOP signs, and red lights. They SHOULD follow all rules, as they are legally required and expected. I have had many people on this board tell me I am naive or lacking in common sense for expecting cyclists to ride on the road at all times, as it is expected and legally required. So, sorry, your diatribe is completely off base.

But, seriously, you are an idiot. Apparently, you think that this is a zero sum game. Haven't you seen signs on some neighborhoods alerting drivers to autistic children? Or, deaf children? Do you think that before any money is spent on such signage, all children should be indoctrinated on the proper way to act? Should a city or State NOT invest on some cheap signage to alert drivers about a way they could improve their driving and make the roads safer for everyone???

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:

I'm fine with a driver education campaign as long as there is an accompanying cyclist education campaign as well.

I see cyclists utterly disregard traffic laws all the time, blowing through stop signs, running red lights, salmoning, etc. It's like they think the rules of the road don't apply to them because they aren't in a car.

Oh, and they must wear helmets and use lights and reflectors too. Maybe the constant absence of these things contributes to why drivers can credibly say "oh, I didn't see him." Because it's true, and the cyclist doesn't take enough personal responsibility.

But I agree that once cyclists become educated on proper cyclist behavior, I'm fine with tax money being spent for a driver education campaign as well.

You are an idiot. First of all, one thing should not hinge on the other. Secondly, why do you think wearing a helmet will make it easier to see/spot a cyclist? Third, helmets are NOT LEGALLY REQUIRED in the State of NJ for adult riders. In the State of NJ, only children under the age of 17 are required to wear a helmet when cycling, roller blading or skating.

The vast majority of bicycle/vehicle collisions are predicated on drivers failing one basic tenet: responsibility to maintain proper separation between vehicles. Which is legalese for "driver ran into cyclist".

You simply want double standards: drivers must obey all laws but not cyclists. Do you dispute that traffic laws apply to cyclists? That they cannot blow through stop signs, run red lights, bike on the sidewalk, salmon, etc? Either many cyclists don't know they have to follow these laws or they don't care.

You advocate for all drivers to respect cyclists without cyclists needing to obey the law. As I said, cyclist disregard of laws is rampant, yet you are not concerned about this. You pretend it's as simple as their "freedom to ride." What you are really saying is they should be free to break the rules and only drivers have responsibility for cyclist safety.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
The driver was at fault - 100%.

But was the cyclist wearing a helmet? Did he have lights and reflectors? And riding on river road at 10PM. Not a smart move if you value your life.

You should have stopped at the first sentence. The rest is just victim blaming.

Do you also ask rape victims if they were wearing a skirt? Or, if they wore too much make up? You probably think that walking alone out on the street at night is not a smart move if a woman values her body. Yes, I am being over the top but I think you get the idea.

In the end, the victim was exercising his freedom to ride. A drunk took his life. Hopefully, justice will prevail.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:

I'm fine with a driver education campaign as long as there is an accompanying cyclist education campaign as well.

I see cyclists utterly disregard traffic laws all the time, blowing through stop signs, running red lights, salmoning, etc. It's like they think the rules of the road don't apply to them because they aren't in a car.

Oh, and they must wear helmets and use lights and reflectors too. Maybe the constant absence of these things contributes to why drivers can credibly say "oh, I didn't see him." Because it's true, and the cyclist doesn't take enough personal responsibility.

But I agree that once cyclists become educated on proper cyclist behavior, I'm fine with tax money being spent for a driver education campaign as well.

You are an idiot. First of all, one thing should not hinge on the other. Secondly, why do you think wearing a helmet will make it easier to see/spot a cyclist? Third, helmets are NOT LEGALLY REQUIRED in the State of NJ for adult riders. In the State of NJ, only children under the age of 17 are required to wear a helmet when cycling, roller blading or skating.

The vast majority of bicycle/vehicle collisions are predicated on drivers failing one basic tenet: responsibility to maintain proper separation between vehicles. Which is legalese for "driver ran into cyclist".

JCMan8 wrote:

I'm fine with a driver education campaign as long as there is an accompanying cyclist education campaign as well.

I see cyclists utterly disregard traffic laws all the time, blowing through stop signs, running red lights, salmoning, etc. It's like they think the rules of the road don't apply to them because they aren't in a car.

Oh, and they must wear helmets and use lights and reflectors too. Maybe the constant absence of these things contributes to why drivers can credibly say "oh, I didn't see him." Because it's true, and the cyclist doesn't take enough personal responsibility.

But I agree that once cyclists become educated on proper cyclist behavior, I'm fine with tax money being spent for a driver education campaign as well.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

On_The_3rd wrote:
Sadly, the only reason she is being indicted is on the suspicion she was drunk. If that weren't the case, it would be just another "oh, i didn't see him ? accident". All too common with driver/cyclist collisions and the standard get-out-of-jail free excuse.

Probably true. When we take to the road, on foot or on wheels, we are nothing more than second class citizens.

I will say that I have been on River Road a LOT on my bikes and I normally take over the lane. Traffic is heavy most of the time, and given people's predilection for distractions while driving, I feel like I stand out more by being smack in the middle of the lane. If someone is mad or annoyed with me, they are aware of me.

The state should really invest on a driver education campaign encouraging drivers to be aware of cyclist and to share the roads safely. Even car-centric Texas has done this over the past few years, posting signs all over the place (particularly on frontage roads) admonishing drivers to be aware of cyclists and to be courteous towards them.

On_The_3rd wrote:
Sadly, the only reason she is being indicted is on the suspicion she was drunk. If that weren't the case, it would be just another "oh, i didn't see him ? accident". All too common with driver/cyclist collisions and the standard get-out-of-jail free excuse.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
The driver was at fault - 100%.

But was the cyclist wearing a helmet? Did he have lights and reflectors? And riding on river road at 10PM. Not a smart move if you value your life.

You should have stopped at the first sentence. The rest is just victim blaming.

SOS wrote:
Quote:

JC_rider wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
The driver was at fault - 100%.

But was the cyclist wearing a helmet? Did he have lights and reflectors? And riding on river road at 10PM. Not a smart move if you value your life.

Wow. 300g compressed foam cycling helmet against a 5000LBS hummer.

from -
http://www.northjersey.com/news/grand ... -struck-cyclist-1.1267693

"Authorities said Tyson was hit from the back and thrown to the pavement, and suffered injuries that left him in critical condition at the Hackensack University Medical Center. "

In my original post I was asking if he was wearing a helmet. For all I know he was. From the description of the accident wearing a helmet may have made a difference. Maybe not. But helmets - on bicycles and motorcycles riders do save lives.

JC_rider wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
The driver was at fault - 100%.

But was the cyclist wearing a helmet? Did he have lights and reflectors? And riding on river road at 10PM. Not a smart move if you value your life.

Wow. 300g compressed foam cycling helmet against a 5000LBS hummer.

SOS wrote:
The driver was at fault - 100%.

But was the cyclist wearing a helmet? Did he have lights and reflectors? And riding on river road at 10PM. Not a smart move if you value your life.

SOS wrote:
The driver was at fault - 100%.

But was the cyclist wearing a helmet? Did he have lights and reflectors? And riding on river road at 10PM. Not a smart move if you value your life.

JGJDNYCJC wrote:
Quote:

user1111 wrote:
Myles Ma | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com

HACKENSACK -- A grand jury indicted a North Bergen woman Monday on charges of fatally striking a bicyclist in Edgewater while driving drunk, the Record reported.

Siobhan Stokley, 40, struck bicyclist Tony Tyson, 61, of Jersey City, with her Hummer on May 9, prosecutors said. Tyson, who was biking on River Road, died days later.

Officers at the scene said Stokley appeared to be drunk.

The indictment charges Stokley with death by auto.

Link

I hope they throw the book at her. Drunk driving, if in fact that was the case, is simply inexcusable.

user1111 wrote:
Myles Ma | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com

HACKENSACK -- A grand jury indicted a North Bergen woman Monday on charges of fatally striking a bicyclist in Edgewater while driving drunk, the Record reported.

Siobhan Stokley, 40, struck bicyclist Tony Tyson, 61, of Jersey City, with her Hummer on May 9, prosecutors said. Tyson, who was biking on River Road, died days later.

Officers at the scene said Stokley appeared to be drunk.

The indictment charges Stokley with death by auto.

Link