cyclist killed on Perkins

[Spent Brass]

sad story. There's a white bike memorial on perkins now.


http://www.wafb.com/story/16588727/...rly-4-times-legal-limit#.Tx7jY81bj_4.facebook

 

[dantheman]

Perkins Rd. is no place to ride a bike . Yeah , I know the driver was drunk and some of you know how I feel about drunk drivers , but I just don't think bikes should be sharing the roadway with motor vehicles .

 

[bravo3]

Perkins Rd. is no place to ride a bike . Yeah , I know the driver was drunk and some of you know how I feel about drunk drivers , but I just don't think bikes should be sharing the roadway with motor vehicles .

What choice do cyclists have? And please don't say to use a bike lane, because not everyone wants to ride up and down the little stretch of Goodwood and Sherwood Forest.

Bikes don't belong on the road, we are already so far behind the times as a state, why not just go further into the dark ages?

And you are right, bikes shouldn't share the roadway with motor vehicles, but motor vehicles SHOULD share the roadway with bikes.

 

[TomTerrific]

What choice do cyclists have? And please don't say to use a bike lane, because not everyone wants to ride up and down the little stretch of Goodwood and Sherwood Forest.

Bikes don't belong on the road, we are already so far behind the times as a state, why not just go further into the dark ages?

And you are right, bikes shouldn't share the roadway with motor vehicles, but motor vehicles SHOULD share the roadway with bikes.

+1

 

[Spent Brass]

What choice do cyclists have? And please don't say to use a bike lane, because not everyone wants to ride up and down the little stretch of Goodwood and Sherwood Forest.

Bikes don't belong on the road, we are already so far behind the times as a state, why not just go further into the dark ages?

And you are right, bikes shouldn't share the roadway with motor vehicles, but motor vehicles SHOULD share the roadway with bikes.

Seriously, I commute on a bicycle. Saves me a hell of a lot in gas and hassle of parking plus it keeps me in shape. I have no choice where I live except to ride in the road. Where I legally have to by the way, no cyclists on sidewalks. Theres a 3 foot passing rule in place for a reason.

 

[dantheman]

As long as bicycles try to compete for space with a motor vehicle , they will lose every time and people will die . I'm sorry cyclist don't have more choices but that doesn't change the facts .

 

[Suburbazine]

I think it was more likely coincidence than not that a drunk guy hit them. They are biking down the road with **** poor reflectors AT NIGHT. Hell, I'm damn sober and I nearly **** myself sometimes when I encounter a cyclist on the road AT NIGHT. I generally only see them inside the 100' mark of my headlights and that's not a lot of space to work with.

 

[dantheman]

One morning I was driving down River Road heading to St. Gabriel . It was barely daylight and foggy as hell . I came up on the back of two Lance Armstrong wannabe's riding in the middle of the road . One of them had a tiny little flashing light on the back of his seat . That's the only reason I didn't run over the both of them . If I had hit them , I would have been crucified for it . They may have had a right to be there , by law , but it was a **** poor decision to ride on THAT road under THOSE conditions .

 

[oleheat]

I'll put it this way: Knowing that I'm in the right as I'm about to be crushed on a bicycle by an oncoming Cutlass seems like a pretty crappy consolation prize considering the end result.


I'm not in any way saying the drunk guy wasn't at fault here. However.....

What I am saying is if you are riding a bike and happen to have an "accident" with an automobile- any automobile- YOU....WILL....LOSE. Quite possibly your very life.


And don't give me the "that could happen in your car" bit. We all know this- and what does that tell you?? Think about it. In an automobile, you at least have SOMETHING between you and the oncoming vehicle.....

I also won't put motorcycles on the same level as bicycles- as they possess the ability to keep up with the flow of traffic. Bicycles do not.



Considering average skill level of the drivers we seem to have here, I'm of the opinion that someone who has chosen a bicycle as a primary form of transportation should seriously re-evaluate their decision. And that's not even considering the drunks....

My opinion.

 

[Pacioli]

They are biking down the road with **** poor reflectors AT NIGHT.

I didn't see this in the media coverage. Did I miss it or are you assuming about the reflectors?

 

[Emperor]

The drunk is screwed! It is hard to believe that the impairment didn't have a direct cause, cause he mowed down two cyclists at the same time. But all facts not released.

Now, if you want a Twilight Zone Moment, imagine if the same cyclists were struck down by the same guy, but he wasn't drinking. Different legal results?!?

Ooooooooohhhhhhwaaaaaaaaaooooooohhh. <Mysterious sound effect.

 

[Spent Brass]

Depends, I didn't see anywhere if they were properly illuminated or not. I use a bright white light up front and a flashing red set of LED's on the back. Im visible for 500 feet in both directions.

RS 32:329 Bicycles; Front Lamps; Side and Rear Reflectors; Rear Lamps

A. Every bicycle when in use at nighttime shall be equipped with a lamp on the front which shall emit a white light visible from a distance of at least five hundred feet to the front and with a red reflector on the rear and a reflector on each side facing outward at a right angle to the bicycle frame, all of a type approved by the department which shall be visible from all distances within six hundred feet to one hundred feet to the rear when directly in front of lawful lower beams of headlamps on a motor vehicle. A lamp emitting a red light visible from a distance of five hundred feet to the rear may be used in addition to the red reflector.

B. Every bicycle when in use at nighttime on a state highway, parish road, or city street, in addition to the requirements of Subsection A of this Section, shall be equipped with a lamp emitting a red flashing light or a red light on the rear of the bicycle, which has sufficient candle power so that such lamp projects light from all distances within one hundred feet to six hundred feet when directly in front of lawful lower beams of headlamps on a motor vehicle.

 

[Praesul Presul]

As someone who has logged many miles commuting to work, I am sorry to hear about this especially seeing how he had a daughter. Yeah the media coverage is pretty thin - I guess Mr. Telepromter's speech and the rescue of 2 idiots out of Somalia topped it.

I do have a few comments. First riding in those circumstances around here is just asking for it. I purposely chose routes that lessen my involvement with cars. Second, to hell with the law, if there is a sidewalk I ride on it - fine me. I rarely encounter a pedestrian and I am always watching for cars pulling out. Our educational system around here has produced WAY too many people that have no business operating any vehicle for me to gamble with my life. As this BS city has many places without ADA sidewalks or sidewalks period, when I am in the street my situational awareness is on full.

 

[sraacke]

The guy who was killed was an avid biker who was an employee of MidCity bikes. His bike was equiped with reflectors and the required lighting. He and his companion had the right to be on that stretch of road. The drunk driver deserves all of the fault for this. Not the cyclists.

I have often compaired the LOCAL mission of educating the public about lawful Open Carry with the missions of the various bike groups to educate citizens about the legal rights to ride on public streets.

First are statements similar to those made in this thread by posters such as Oleheat. His post reads almost like some posted argueing against the practice of Open Carry. It's so similar it's scary.

Bravo3 pointed out that while you may disagree with them being on the road, the law is on their side. Get over it and learn to live with it.
The bike clubs have worked hard to educate the public but still we see drivers who don't recognize the rights of bikes. We also see bike riders who fail to follow the same laws and rules of the road. All of this leads to misinformation, confusion and sometimes injuries and deaths.

Let me tell you from first hand experiance. I drive to work at night and often drive down Perkins past the Pennington center where this rider was killed. I see some who, like him, are visible, riding on the far right side of the road and are following the rules of the road.
I see others who are riding their bikes with no lights or reflectors, down the center of the road or even against traffic.

I have been driving from Perkins, up Acadian toward Government when a cyclist came right at me in my lane. I slammed on my brakes, layed on the horn and yelled for the jerk to get the hell over on his side of the road. He did the opposite and rode over even further toward my side, right where I was steering to avoid him, and we nearly collided. He ran up and over the curb into the grass on my side of the street. I missed him by inches.

I was taking a coworker to work that night and he couldn't understand why I was mad at the cyclist. He told me that when he was growing up (he's ~30 yo) all the kids were instructed to ride against traffic. That it was safer that way. My lady, Tena told me the same thing when I recounted the story the next morning when I got home. I was amazed. I'm 43 yo and was always taught to ride on the right side of the road along with traffic, follow all signs and traffic lights and to use hand signals when turning or stopping.

This isn't anything new. The laws have been on the books for years. The bike clubs have been holding bike rides on an almost weekly basis around Baton Rouge to raise awareness of the laws. They have done media campaigns and interviews. They never miss a chance to get the word out. A good example is this article in 225 Magazine->http://www.225batonrouge.com/news/2009/nov/01/baton-rouge-comes-full-cycle/ .

Yet there are still people who think that bikes aren't supposed to ride in the street ("Aren't they supposed to be on the sidewalk?") or they should be riding in the left lanes against traffic ("...because it's safer 'cause you can see oncoming traffic").

Zeus Damn it people! How many bicycle riders have to die before the asshats driving down the highway trying to drink Starbucks while texting thier friends about the latest episode of Dancing With the Stars pull thier heads out of thier butts and start paying attention to actually driving?

How bad is it that the city had to pay to have street workers paint "Sharrows" on the roads and put up "Share The Road" signs on light poles along the same streets? All to remind motorists that the bikes have a right to be there and the laws to back those rights up. Why does this even have to be an issue? This should have been covered in Drivers Ed in high school.

It's as stupid as having to pass a law telling people to stay right unless passing on the interstate. Then putting up signs every few miles along the interstate to remind these idiots of something they should be doing anyway.

On the WAFB interview, one of the bike shop guys made a statement that mirrors what many of us who Open Carry often make. He said that, and I'm paraphrasing here, the more people bike on the streets the safer cyclists will be. That if bike riding becomes rare then those few who choose to ride will face more uninformed drivers or drivers who aren't used to looking for or seeing cyclists.

Sounds a lot like how we argue that the more people who Open Carry the more other citizens will see it and not freak out and that will make it easier for others to Open Carry.

It's about education.
Learn the laws.
Get over it and share the road.
[/RANT]

 

[olivs260]

I was taking a coworker to work that night and he couldn't understand why I was mad at the cyclist. He told me that when he was growing up (he's ~30 yo) all the kids were instructed to ride against traffic. That it was safer that way. My lady, Tena told me the same thing when I recounted the story the next morning when I got home. I was amazed. I'm 43 yo and was always taught to ride on the right side of the road along with traffic, follow all signs and traffic lights and to use hand signals when turning or stopping.

This isn't anything new. The laws have been on the books for years. The bike clubs have been holding bike rides on an almost weekly basis around Baton Rouge to raise awareness of the laws. They have done media campaigns and interviews. They never miss a chance to get the word out. A good example is this article in 225 Magazine->http://www.225batonrouge.com/news/2009/nov/01/baton-rouge-comes-full-cycle/ .

Yet there are still people who think that bikes aren't supposed to ride in the street ("Aren't they supposed to be on the sidewalk?") or they should be riding in the left lanes against traffic ("...because it's safer 'cause you can see oncoming traffic").

My understanding is that bike riders should follow the same laws as motorists (drive on the right side, stop at all stop signs/red lights, etc). When running on the street, we run "against" traffic for exactly the reason listed above. It makes sense if you consider that a cyclist might be going, what, 25mph? (I don't know, it's been a while), and a runner will be somewhere in the 6-10mph range and be much more able to change direction, stop, etc. It's just easier for traffic to deal with passing a bicycle moving 20-25 than the cyclist having to stop or move onto a sometimes non-existent shoulder to let traffic pass by.

 

[sraacke]

My understanding is that bike riders should follow the same laws as motorists (drive on the right side, stop at all stop signs/red lights, etc).

Correct. See http://brgov.com/dept/planning/bike/lalaw.htm for Lousiana Laws Related to Bicycling.

 

[oleheat]

The law is indeed on their side. They can feel free to ride their bikes in the busiest, most obnoxiously horrible traffic baton Rouge has to offer- complete with the entire compliment of moronic drivers that we've all mentioned.


I won't, because I like livin'.


As for as "educating" moronic area drivers on the laws involving bicycles, lotsa luck in that department.....

It might be easier to lobby congress for "Nerf-Only" vehicle requirements starting in 2013.

 

[Spent Brass]

nice rant Yale. I wish more people would be educated about cyclists rights, but Oleheats got a point. BR citizens are idiots. Yea the bike clubs try to get the word out and whatnot. I ride the Critical Mass ride every other month or so and I participate with BRAMBA but I don't think it has much more effect than the drivers thinking," WTF are 300 bikes doing on the road!?" It would be nice if it was included in the schools or in drivers education.

 

[Pacioli]

BR citizens are idiots.

It's not unique to Baton Rouge. I was an avid cyclist for many years in Lafayette. We had fatalities every so often and every cyclist had near miss horror stories. Cycling is just dangerous in South LA, even when you do everything you're supposed to. Shame about the guy getting killed. Hope the drunk driver gets what's coming to him.

 

[davidd]

I am not a traffic expert, nor I am an avid cyclist. I do ride my bike around the neighborhood with my kids, and I ride occasionally to the major road at the ends of the neighborhood where the strip mall is. I would never ride on Perkins Road, as I want my kids to grow up with a father in their life. My wife refuses to let me buy a motorcycle. I tell her that riding my bike on the road is, in my opinion, actually more dangerous.

That being said, the way we have structured the current "share the road with a bike" system in inherently flawed. I do not have stats or links to back this up, but I know I have read in the past that most traffic incidents occur from two situations: (1) When traffic crosses inadvertently in either opposite directions (crossing the center line) or at an intersection (t-bone collision); and (2) when one vehicle is moving at a rate of speed vastly different from other vehicles in the same path of travel and they collide or side swipe. There is a reason that there is a minimum speed limit on the Interstate - traffic engineers realize that fast moving traffic is often not prepared to come up on slow moving traffic, and the meeting of the two does result in bad outcomes.

Now, let's relate this to cycles on Perkins Road. Drunk driving aside (that is an entirely separate discussion from cycles on the road), Perkins Road traffic travels at about 45MPH. On a slow day. On the Interstate, I often see a minimum speed sign of 45MPH in a 60MPH zone. So, being generous and applying a net difference instead of a percent difference, one would believe that in order to travel safely on Perkins Road, according to traffic engineers, one should be traveling at a minimum of 30MPH. It is a gross oversimplification, but you get the idea. The simple fact is that we have legislated the right for cyclists to travel our roads in a manner that is inherently unsafe for the cyclist's well-being.

What should we do about this? The problem is nothing that money cannot fix. Making roads wider to accommodate bike lanes is easy. The new Brightside Lane is an excellent example. Nice job BR! But for existing roads, where does this funding come from, and do we force it at the expense of other local needs (schools, sewer upgrades, road repair, police and fire service, city employee salary and benefits...). Hell, we can't even fund public bus service right now. Roads are mostly built with taxes on vehicles and gas. Perhaps the cycle community would agree to a dedicated tax on cycles for the purpose of upgrading our existing roads for better use by cyclists?

I would love to be able to safely ride over to Albertson's on Perkins at Essen. You won't catch my ass trying that until Perkins has something of a safe place for me to ride.