Hawthorne Bridge rider comes forward to correct "inaccurate depiction of events"
Posted by Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) on May 8th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
"We should also remember that accidents happen, they happen driving, walking, and cycling."
-- Anonymous rider who was involved in a collision on the Hawthorne Bridge
The man who was involved in a horrific crash on the Hawthorne Bridge on Wednesday has come forward with his version of how it happened.
The eyewitness account of the collision has sparked a lot reaction from the community. The BTA has just published their perspective on the crash, saying "This is the most gruesome consequence of bike congestion and bad behavior to have come to our attention."
Now, the man who an eyewitness referred to as "riding like an idiot" wants to set the record straight.
He contacted us via email and asked to remain anonymous because he's an "active member of the cycling community" and he claims there has been "false and damaging information published about my cycling behavior."
Here is his email:
I would like to address a few things about this very eloquent, but inaccurate depiction of the events that took place two days ago on the Hawthorne.
As I got on the bridge my average rate of speed was faster than the aggregate. The entire time I was riding on the bridge I had stayed on a trajectory hugging the left edge of the path as safely possible. As I passed cyclists and pedestrians I gave a “left” call before committing to moving ahead of those people to the right of me.
As I came up on a woman, she was riding just to the right of the middle of the path. There was a person that I would estimate walking 15-20 feet directly ahead of the woman. As I came up riding to the left of her, I again called out “left” before committing to moving in front of her while staying on my same trajectory. When I was parallel with her handle bars she turned her bicycle to the left and our handle bars slightly hit each other. I was able to ride through. Out of the corner of my eye I saw the woman was wobbling and her trajectory was moving to the left, crossing the path which I had just crossed.
[Note: The eyewitness account stated that, "Because the woman was riding about two feet from the edge of the sidewalk, the guy moved to the middle."]
She then hit the grate and the car stopped just before a large collision as [the witness] describes. Now I can understand how he perceives me riding to the right of the women in the middle of the path. The woman did end up on the road, which was to her left. But their was no force coming from her right pushing to the left, as I was completely to the left on the same trajectory I had been the entire ride over the Hawthorne.
I just want to remind people, as they read about this story, it is easy to see the aftermath of a horrible accident and assume, which then becomes a belief, what happened to create the critical point where trajectories change and accidents happen. We should also remember that accidents happen, they happen driving, walking, and cycling. One incident viewed by a person with poor understandings of the events is no reason to discourage people from cycling."
The eyewitness said, "[The rider] deserves whatever punishment or lawsuit that he gets. There was absolutely no need for him to ride the way he did, none whatsoever."
UPDATE:
The woman who crashed contacted us with this update on her condition:
"I was discharged from the ER late Wednesday night - thanks to a crew of loving friends and a fantastic GF, I'm doing okay. The damage totals 17 stitches in various places on my face, two elbow staples, a ton of scrapes and bruises and a face so swollen my mom may not recognize me. Still, though, no broken bones and no organ damage. My brain is fine, although my memory of the incident and the following 6 hours are hazy.
I think I'm going to browse new helmets online. The old one is definitely retired."
Email This Post
Possibly related posts 
There's no such thing as an accident.
RecommendedThe Portland Bureau of Transportation has organized a bike safety event for this afternoon and Monday, May 11th from 4:00 p.m. - 5:30 p.m. on the south path of the Hawthorne Bridge.
The event will be to encourage safe riding by cyclists and courteousness by all path users.
We will be giving out bike bells to cyclists and pedometers to pedestrians.
If one slows down from 15 mph to 10 mph, it will take 36 more seconds to cross the bridge.
RecommendedHere is the link for the above event:
Recommendedhttp://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=39132&a=244279
If it not safe to pass--don't pass (in a car or bike). Which side he passed is of little consequence if he caused an accident.
Recommendedregardless, you shouldn't be passing other cyclists while they are simultaneously overtaking and passing pedestrians.
I specifically avoid the evening rush on the Hawthorne for the following reasons:
cyclists overtaking other cyclist too close on the left with or without audible warning. If I can reach over and touch you, you are passing too closely.
Cyclists overtaking other cyclists on the right usually without any audible warning.
Cyclists overtaking other cyclists and pedestrians at the same time.
To all the speed demons out there, including the anonymous cyclist quoted above - slow down! and get a bell and learn how to use it. I'd say less than 10% of cyclists on the bridge give any audible warning when passing, and a bell should be the preferable method of warning, verbal statements are often hard to hear or understand.
RecommendedGreat. I appreciate the efforts made by PBOT to do some educational outreach in an effort to improve the situation on the Hawthorne Bridge.
Like all educational efforts, it can only go so far, however. Better design and increased capacity would do so much more.
As for the rider's story, it's much more believable than the initial story yesterday, and fits with my experience in four years of daily crossings of that bridge. I'd say there's still some share of blame on both parties, but usually the one passing has a much greater responsibility.
People need to be alert, and to assume that nobody else is paying attention.
Recommended"As I got on the bridge my average rate of speed was faster than the aggregate."
Sounds to me like a violation of the speed-too-fast-for-condition rule.
RecommendedGod knows I have yelled "left" and had walkers and riders actually turn left towards me. Makes me wonder if the rider who went down knew the convention.
I am curious how much faster he was going than the "aggregate". He makes it sound like he was going slow enough that his passing was a decision, not a forgone conclusion. If he was moving substantially faster, that fundamentally alters the closure rate, distance perception when he calls out "left", and response time for both parties if things go south. If he was going like a bat out of hell, his trajectory and verbal warnings are not enough to mitigate the compression of all other factors.
RecommendedThe easy solution is to close the right hand lanes of the bridge during the spring/summer months when traffic is high. Use the plywood that they have for the Providence Bridge Pedal and tie it down for the summer, with some non-stick surface. Leave it on from May 1 to Sept 30.
It's ridiculously dangerous as-is. A high drop to a steel grate is not an easy fall to handle under any circumstances.
Ted Buehler
RecommendedSo he went for the pass on the left even though he could see that she would have to move left at the same to move around the pedestrian?
Also, why is "trajectory" such a fixation with this person. He wasn't an asteroid in space. It seems that he could have simply reduced his speed and passed when there was more room 8 seconds later.
RecommendedWe have an eyewitness account, and now we have an account from a party directly involved. Until I hear the other party's account, there's not much more to do here than continue speculating.
When will we hear the injured party's side of the story?
RecommendedYou people need to pick up the pace. I ride my bike to get around quickly as opposed to walking. Slow and sunny day bike riders should be required to walk their bikes across the bridges. This would solve the problem of safety hazards caused by slow and amateur riders.
RecommendedWho let the trolls out? Please ignore jvandub.
RecommendedAnonymous aggressive bike dude, Slow Down!
If this was a ski slope the ski patrol would kick you off the mountain.
If you are overtaking a slower rider it is YOUR responsibility to pass with all due care. Just bellowing "on your left" as you shoulder your way through the congestion doesn't absolve you of all responsibility.
RecommendedWhy is it that you folks who are typing comments saying "Slow down" think people are actually going to slow down?
Do you think those people riding fast are going to slow down if you say it to them on the brige, also?
Recommendedmaybe it's time to start bumping some of the unsafe passers onto the grating.
RecommendedI said it yesterday and I will say it again today. The Hawthorne Bridge is not that long. If the bike traffic is slow (and there are pedestrians as well), deal with it and wait until you get across the bridge and have substantially more room to pass. Doing this will, at best, make you lose about two minutes of your commute.
Just thank your lucky stars that you do not have to commute by car on the Sunset Highway every day at rush hour.
RecommendedThree possibilities for what happened, according to the accounts we have so far:
1) Aggressive cyclist buzzed other cyclist so close that their handlebars grazed as he passed. Same thing as when a car buzzes and clips a cyclist.
2) Faster cyclist overtook slower cyclist, who then suddenly swerved into him, and their handlebars grazed. One of the two main explanations drivers offer for why they hit cyclists. Regardless of the explanation, if the faster cyclist was driving a car, we'd have a potential violation of ORS 811.065, Unsafe passing of person operating bicycle. And we'd all be saying "if you can't make a safe pass, wait until it's safe."
3) Aggressive cyclist passed a little too close; other cyclist attempted to avoid pedestrians ahead just as faster cyclist was passing, and their handlebars grazed. Fault still lies with the cyclist who passed too close and failed to keep a proper lookout.
RecommendedDJ I'd just say "catch me."
Recommendedjvandub, you just say the same things a-hole drivers say.
RecommendedI still think they should get off their bikes and walk just like on the Sellwood bridge. Slow bicyclists that is.
RecommendedLike I said, jvandub...
RecommendedAlso, why is "trajectory" such a fixation with this person. He wasn't an asteroid in space. It seems that he could have simply reduced his speed
My thoughts exactly.
RecommendedI'm really amazed at the how many people are comfortable speculating exactly what happened without having been there. If you really don't have anything constructive to add, maybe you shouldn't say anything.
RecommendedIGNORE THE TROLL.
Also, why isn't speculation given two sides of the story not constructive?
RecommendedOne person denies any fault, and another lays all the blame. Eye witness accounts are not reliable.
RecommendedWhy does bicycling have to be a race? You know why bicycling is better than walking, for my commute? Whether or not it's faster, it's EASIER. That's my main concern. When I bike home (which is rarely before 6 on weekdays) I like to go at a comfortable, easy pace. I am very new to bike riding. I'm in lame shape. It's getting much easier for me to go faster and to take go up the hills on my way to work, but if I had to pant and sweat across the bridge the commute would just suck (and make me tired before I start going up the hill). I stay out of people's way as a slow rider.
You know what it would do if we had to walk our bikes? Make us MORE IN THE WAY. We'd just take up more space, go slower, and be more of a pain in your butt. I'm not a slow rider because I want to be in your way. Maybe be a little more considerate? I'm sorry that I don't wear spandex shorts to bike to work. My bike commute is about two miles. It's easy. I'm not hardcore. But to say (basically) that I should just drive instead because I'm in YOUR way is pretty rude.
Biking your commute is not supposed to be some exclusive club. It's not just for people who are already super fit. How is a new commuter supposed to GET fit if they're not 'allowed' to commute when they're slower? Bicycling is good for this city and it should be encouraged, even in people like me who aren't speed demons.
RecommendedI remember I once ate it trying to rub my front tire with someone else's back tire.. but not on a metal grate.
RecommendedSpeculation is rarely helpful because it is just that...speculation. It's a guess or conjecture of what happened with out sufficient evidence or proof.
All I'm saying is lots of people jump to conclusions based on personal biases and it's rarely ever that helpful in these situations.
RecommendedI didnt read where the cyclist denies all of the fault. In fact the only opinion is at the bottom of the post about with regards to accidents and not discouraging cycling.
RecommendedAnonymous Rider is being disingenuous. Calling out "left" is useless if done too late. The rider he is passing has no time to react properly if he/she can even hear his call what with car/wind noise factors.
The bottom line: he shouldn't have been passing.
He's at fault.
RecommendedFor those who are worried about "speculation," let's ignore the eyewitness account from yesterday. (Yes, we all know eyewitnesses aren't very accurate.) So soley based on what the Anonymous Cyclist (AC) has written in (above), what he did was try to pass another rider who he knew would also be trying to pass a pedestrian in less than 20 ft. That's incredibly unsafe - on the Hawthorne Bridge, whether we like it or not, the right "lane" is preferential to pedestrians. If there is a pedestrian on your right, you yield the right lane and occupy the left lane until you have passed the pedestrian. If you are riding and you anticipate that a rider in front of you is going to have to move left, you SLOW DOWN and yield to the other rider. This is not rocket science, but I do see a lot of riders who are in a hurry to overtake everyone else and pass unsafely. It's like driving - you don't pass unless the road ahead is clear for a specified distance, and 15-20 feet is definitely not enough space for you to get clear of someone who will have to move into your lane. I agree with the previous comments about AC's "trajectory" - it's irrelevant, and he needed to yield the way to other riders. Also, it's unsafe to go "faster than the aggregate" in a high traffic area with limited roadway. Personal riding speeds lose out to the general safety of everyone else.
RecommendedIf the female biker hit the anonymous ride by veering a little left, he most likely passed her too closely.
RecommendedPerhaps we should give ourselves the same 3 feet we expect cars to give us while passing.
Anonymous rider....even doing something like shooting an unsafe gap in a road race is going to get yer ass verbally chewed on by fellow riders....time to start thinking a little more about your actions and how they could effect others. You had no idea of the woman's stability, agility, or nervousness while riding a bike...you assumed she could handle a close pass...she couldn't. You were wrong, no matter what you or the eye witnesses say...
RecommendedI typically ride across the Steal Bridge crossing on my commute. It is not uncommon to see near misses there. The Hawthorne is no different and and the Sellwood is miserable.
We (cyclist) do need to self police ourselves and be careful.
RecommendedThis story doesn't make much sense to me. If the bridge was crowded, I'm not sure how the cyclist who was hit could have been to the right of the middle. Him passing on the left when there was a pedestrian ahead doesn't make sense, and her hitting him, then "wobbling" off the road doesn't make sense to me either.
I understand that eye-witness accounts are suspect for a number of cognitive reasons, but the same holds true for a participant of the traumatic event. I hope others step forward with their accounts of the event so that we can try to aggregate the stories to reach a conclusion for what may have happened.
Either way the anonymous cyclist doesn't sound at all repentant, and I am sickened that he is now saying that *she* hit *him*.
RecommendedAlso, shouting "left" doesn't give the person time to process that words are being spoken. Shouting "on your left" is preferable because the passee is likely able to start listening once you've gotten to "on the", assuming you're in audible range. While I personally prefer being passed with an "on your left" to a bell, I suppose a bell is even better for audibility.
Recommendeda shared sidepath is by definition difficult, and like it or not you have to slow down for congestion. a technique from vehicular cycling might be useful here: if you see a cyclist trying to overtake in a situation in which it will not be safe, move left to prevent his overtaking. sounds discourteous, but at least no one ends up dropping onto the steel grate in front of moving cars.
RecommendedInteresting... a bike hits a bike and the safety blitz begins. Not a bad response but when are we going to start the blitz to educate auto drivers? its them not other cyclists that are scary to me.
RecommendedNOw I'm actually curious if 'anonymous cyclist' actually stopped at the scene after the accident, or continued on his merry way while watching the rest of this drama unfold in his rear view mirror? (in which case hit-and-run laws would most likely apply?)
RecommendedJonathan, I think you should have considered whether it was worth protecting the identity of your source here.
If BURR is correct, the cyclist may very well have left the scene of an accident. Would you grant the same favor of anonymity to the driver of a car who did the same thing?
Protecting sources is a very slippery slope, especially when you're talking about potentially criminal acts. I fear for subpoenas and lawyers heading your way.
RecommendedThat sounded like a pretty rational response from the cyclist involved in the accident. And yes, there are accidents. By all accounts he stuck around so this wasn't some "hit and run". There are different speeds on the bridges here and I don't have to ride at the speed of the slowest person. That doesn't make me or this person a "reckless bike rider". Hopefully this will not happen often but everyone doesn't have to "walk or ride at the slowest pace" across the bridges or anywhere else.
RecommendedThe passing vehicle ALWAYS has the ultimate responsibility for the safety of the encounter. Doesn't matter if you are walking, riding, sailing, driving, or flying, it is your responsibility. Spin it any way you want, but the crash would not have happened if you were moving the same speed as traffic, you choose to pass, you are on the hook to make sure that interaction was safe.
RecommendedIt sounds like a combination of the "on your left!" yell spooking the girl who crashed as well as him trying to pass on her left with her already in the process of moving left to get around the pedestrian. In either case, it sounds like he's still to blame.
The Hawthorne bridge sucks though! It's for bike tourists and helmet wearers and other amateurs in silly bike/clown gear.
RecommendedUnless the shout of "LEFT" is shrieked in the highest pitches of a 3 year old child, there's no away I would be able to hear it over the wind and motor noise on the bridge. I can hear bells, however.
My little hearing deficit has an unusual cause, but the inability to hear lower pitches in the presence of constant sound (the wind and cars) is not uncommon. It would be safe to assume that many bicyclists and pedestrians can't hear you when you shout. However, most people who are not in cars will be able to hear a bell most of the time.
If you don't use a bell, don't be surprised (or upset) when people don't get out of your way even when they can.
RecommendedWe just got an email from the victim in this crash:
Recommendedwith respect to the eye witness accounts - it makes a big difference, to me, whether the anonymous cyclist was passing on the left or right. there is an understood lane speed on the bridge like there is on any highway - the further left, the faster. if the anonymous cyclist was on the left; seems to mitigate the behavior.
if the victim in this wobbled to hit the passing cyclist, it is a different story.
I have always thought that copying the Golden Gate bridge model would work well on the Hawthorne. the north side for peds, the south side for bikes(or vice versa depending on hours. at least for high commute summertime)
RecommendedJoe - how would that work on the Hawthorne with the one-way streets that it feeds and dumps onto?
RecommendedAlexis, nice post. Don't let the cyclarti keep you from commuting.
Recommendedhave you ever noticed that anyone riding slower than you is an idiot and anyone riding faster is insane?
RecommendedThis was no accident.
It's called too fast for conditions.
By his own testimony, the fast dude passing from behind is at fault.
The fast dude should not have attempted to pass both the woman cyclist ( crash victim ) and a pedestrian who were "15-20" feet ahead.
Fast anonymous due is unable to admit truth about the past, and he's not willing to change his risky riding in the future.
Sounds a lot like Sam Adam's sunlight and sun visor excuse to me. Sam and fast dude are blaming the conditions. Ha. Nobody will accept accountability in this city and country, so we're doomed to keep repeating the mistakes.
Sad, Sad, Sad.
Recommendedjvandub -
I have a stick that I would be happy to put in your spokes if I ever run into you. Could you put some sort of identifier on you bike so I know who you are? Cuz you have no place on the road with an attitude like that. Watch out. Seriously.
RecommendedJust because you yell "left" does not mean it's safe to do what you want to do. Just because a car signals left does not mean it is safe to merge. As a pedestrian on the Hawthorne bridge during rush hour it is completely terrifying and I really have no sympathy for anyone sacrificing safety for speed or time. If you were a mountain biker yelling "left" and a hiker didn't give up the trail would you continue? I've been to the ER because of riders like you. Thanks Bro.
RecommendedI'd be happy to take you to court.
Recommended#40-41 the original post made it quite clear that the cyclist who was passing stopped when he realized the other cyclist had crashed. I think people are overlooking the fact that when you consider the number of people passing over the bridge it has a pretty great safety record. More serious injuries to drivers occur all over our town everyday. I'm glad the city seems interesting in taking a closer look, and I think that some sort of education, widening, conversion of one of the car lanes could be good for safety, but lets not overreact to one injury. Places like broadway near the I-5 or in the hotel zone are still far more dangerous.
Bjorn
RecommendedThe rider's account incriminates him pretty conclusively. If a pedestrian is taking the left side of the path 15 to 20 YARDS ahead the prudent thing to do is to slow down and pull behind any riders in front of you. Instead, the account is that the pedestrian appeared 15 to 20 FEET ahead and then he signaled and attempted a pass? The "accidents happen" defense might be applicable to a racing situation where riders are competing for a limited amount of the same space. Good luck with that in civil court.
RecommendedToo many riders in this town think they are in Tour de France. Public paths are not race tracks!
RecommendedI had some guy almost run me down on the Hawthorne Bridge a few weeks ago. I was riding in the bike lane and all I heard was someone mumble something but with the car traffic passing on my left I didn't understand, I then heard "on your left" and next thing I knew there was a guy parallel with me passing me on my left, kinda startled me but at least he was the one risking the ditch into traffic if I bumped him and he was going way to fast to be riding in traffic. People just need to slow down when there is traffic, some courtesy goes a long way.
RecommendedSpeed being a factor in a bicycle accident just seems like a stretch to me. Bikes can't go that fast. Also it is simply not possible, there are just too many bodies, to attain top, under one's own power, speeds on that bridge. Doing so would be marked by more than a single cyclist wobbling off the sidewalk. Therefore I'm inclined to believe, regardless of the reports, that the passing cyclist was traveling no more than a few miles an hour faster than the bike he overtook. Not commenting on approach speeds at all. I'm talking about while they were abreast.
With speed out of the equation. Speculatively of course. That leaves me thinking about bike handling skills, response times, physical condition, surface conditions, congestion, experience levels, and any number of things.
Sure the speeds were different between these two. Is that the only relevant factor? Speculation ('Cause it's not like there was a radar gun there.) about speed is the irrelevant factor. I say this because it is only a single factor among many, so even if the encroaching biker WAS traveling too fast, that is only one of many, many, factors in this crash. A single factor in a large group of other factors becomes mitigated to the point of effective non-effect.
Hmm lets see. The City of Portland, the BTA, and this blog, have all been frantically engaged in enticing hordes of novice, sometimes, a lot of the times, first-time riders to begin cycling. Doesn't matter if you've been in traffic enough, in a car or on a bike. Doesn't matter what your physical condition is, or whether you have a handicap that could endanger yourself or others (One comment posted in THIS thread is a cyclist confessing she can't hear normal traffic around her.). Gotta get them out there 'cause that's how they make their money...er...I mean...er...Grow the mode.
Moreover, this push comes at the same time thousands of veteran Portland cyclists remain engaged in their own, before any Californians even knew Oregon existed, bicycling community; and are busily riding bikes like they always have. In essence, this new bike community, the one all Hollywood style, the one livin' green and eating lean, and having their people call those people... decide to expand the market for a product from which they make MONEY, and interject thousands of idiots into the daily commute of thousands of seasoned Portland veterans.
It's not bad enough to invade, homogenize, and then monetize cycling in this manner. Nope. Better to drag a bunch of people with no business having a Driver License let alone riding a bike, onto the streets of Portland to, "Grow the mode.", and let's not forget - Make that money.
So, BikePortland and apparently many of those who read it, advocate flooding the streets with incompetent, for any number of reasons, riders and then want to stand back and lambast the COMPETENT cyclists for going too fast when an accident occurs. For not getting into the, "Can't we all just get along", spirit of accommodating rude, unskilled, out-of-shape, and insanely entitled, newcomers.
For the record. When I'm a pedestrian on the Hawthorne I'll walk anywhere, anyway, any direction that I choose at the moment. You can ring your little bells, you can signal your intent all you like. You will also yield right-of-way to me, and quit with your control-freak, I just moved here and I'm gonna show you how it's done B.S. with your stupid, irritating, childish, ridiculous little bells. That bell is tolerated because it's a useful emergency device. It is not however a, "People get out of my way", button, and using like that makes me enjoy being a pain in the ass.
No special licenses. I suggest even getting rid of the motorcycle endorsing process. No registration or insurance. Nothing THAT big. It is time though, for rational cyclists to begin entertaining the notion of requiring a plain old Oregon Driver License to operate anything that moves faster than a human body on Oregon roads. I'm the biggest loser I know, and often oppose suggestions like this because of the impact on the poor. However, even being a big-loser I can still hang on to my license, and feel that's not too much to ask.
After every Oregon road user has a license here's what ya do:
One bike one rider: No trailers, no cargo-bike-crap, no child seats, none of that crap. It's a safety liability greater than anything else this blog will try to snow you into believing. Don't forget, THIS cycling community makes its money FROM the cycling community. So of course selling a trailer will be secondary to the buyer's safety. They'll lead you to believe otherwise, right up 'til they go home and fire up the minivan for some, "Shopping", at the mall.
No bike lanes: These are the cages with golden bars. A useful secondary tool for most cyclists. A personal-liberty-stealing, painted prison, as a mandate. You want cut off from access to the entire public-right-of-way? You just let these people, so concerned with your safety, keep painting their little lines. That will be the ONLY place you can ride a bike before you can blink an eye. It already is once Oregon can scare up the money to do their inspections.
Same road, same rules: The proliferation of euro-style safety affectations of late are creating resentment amongst other modes. From peds to cars people are getting mad at ubiquitous bike spending when they view our accommodations as beyond adequate already, while they drive and walk on post-apocalyptic destruction-scapes. The problem isn't the infrastructure, the problem could be addressed by controlling population growth/density in Oregon with excise taxation.
Oh, and sorry about your kids. They can't ride in the street any more. Can't say that I'm all broke up about it either. It ain't 1955 and I don't like my tax contribution toward getting to work being used to subsidize a playground for your kids. Keep it on the sidewalk until you're 16 please.
No more bike-lanes. No more unenforceable rules. No more idiot solutions like routing forward traveling bicycles by the right-side of right-turning cars. No more blaming strong, competent riders for being strong, and competent. No more, "educating", of experienced riders while you'all let the newbs run amok out of fear of shrinking revenue...er...I mean... mode.
Too slow is just as bad as too fast. Period. Slow down you say? Get out of the way, I say. What's the diff?
RecommendedA bell doesn't mean "get out of my way" it gives an audible signal that you are passing another bike or pedestrian.
RecommendedBELLS ARE UNIVERSALLY UNDERSTOOD. EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE ONE IN THE CITY. NOT EVERYONE SPEAKS ENGLISH. GET ONE.
RecommendedSo pass, what's with the bell? If there's room to pass, if it's safe to pass, pass. What? If you feel you are doing me a courtesy in this situation, then don't, thanks all the same. I don't remember asking for your kindness anyway. I never said I need some courtesy sound emitted before legitimately passing me. That's some b.s. that's only proliferated with the influx of newcommers. It's a fashion statement. The reality is, that's not what you are talking about anyway, is it? You are talking about a situation where several peds are abreast and you want around, so you ring yer little bell-bell. Or some such, fill in the blanks with what ever mode you like.
I deliberately impede bell-ringing cyclists on the Hawthorne. Deliberately. Did you get that, d-e-l-i-b-e-r-a-t-e-l-y. I do this as a means of annoying entitled cyclists who use their bell as a, "Get out of my way", button. As a pedestrian with the right-of-way here, I'm willing to risk bodily injury to exercise that right, and hopefully maintain it as well. With that right-of-way, if you injure me, I'll get half your Stumptown paycheck for the rest of what life I don't take from you in tort court.
Your little bell ringing thing is tantamount to cars honking at each other to signal frustration, or issue instructions. Like, "The light is green, go!". That bell is an emergency device. You know, like when somebody pops out of nowhere and a collision is eminent. Or you are engaged in legal, legitimate behavior and an encroaching user is threatening you. It's not to clear your path. It's not to give me a figurative hug-warning. Admit it. You use the thing like a get-out-of-my-way button.
Recommended#61 - NO THEY'RE NOT. NO THEY SHOULDN'T. NOT SPEAKING ENGLISH LIKELY MEANS NOT READING IT EITHER. WHAT LANGUAGE IS ALL OF OUR SIGNALING INFRASTRUCTURE WRITTEN IN?!
Recommendedwhen i first started riding around, if i heard somebody yell "left" i often moved to the left. one single word doesn't mean anything! how about "on your left!" that's what i always say when approaching to pass, by that point i'm already behind them to their left, they hear it in their left ear, it directs their head to the left behind to see me and they acknowledge and stay on their trajectory while i overtake the car lane and pass.
RecommendedLance, #62:
Bells were mandated for cyclists beginning in the 1890s, because pedestrians were often run down by cyclists; this was because unlike the clattering hooves one associated with the sound of an approaching vehicle or horse, cyclists were both swift and silent, and pedestrians couldn't hear them approaching.
Looks like you're the newcomer.
And a self-important one with an inflated sense of entitlement, at that. Do you really thin=k that the world so revolves around you that standards of courtesy are based on your preferences?
A ringing bell doesn't mean "get out of my way." It means "I'm behind you, and planning to pass, but don't want to startle you." You don't like the courtesy? Tough. The world doesn't revolve around you.
RecommendedI'd agree that to use a bell constructively to alert people that you're approaching them requires a certain conscientiousness and patience. Sometimes people startle easily, so first ring further away is better than closer.
If they hear your gentle rap on the bell in the distance, they might move over without any further announcement. From the person I'm passing, I like to be able to see some slight physical indication that they're aware of my presence before I proceed on abreast of them and pass.
Some people manage to be obnoxious whether they're riding a bike and announcing their presence and intention to pass with a bell and a call out or driving a motor vehicle and misusing the vehicle's horn. Many aren't though, or are trying not to be. They're trying their best to look out for your welfare and theirs in the best way they know at present, so it seems kind of stupid, or at least unfortunate, to blanket respond with rudeness and hostility to every person that rings a bell or taps a horn.
RecommendedThe City missed an opportunity when the Hawthorne Bridge enhancements did not include double-decking of the bike/ped ways. Vertical clearance would need be only about 8 feet for the lower (ped) level and the two modes wouldd be SEPARATE! Feasible???
Recommendedwsbob's got it exactly right.
RecommendedVance, I kind of like you, I know you are a libertarian right wing freak but you do have some good points. I am not riding with a bell! I try to be courteous and let people know I am passing but I agree, I shouldn't have to slow down or stop for a slow rider. THIS WAS AN ACCIDENT! A hopefully isolated incident that does not require a response that we all walk our bikes over the bridges. Please! There are lots of car accidents, they don't require car drivers to go 10 mph. Just use common sense, it doesn't sound to me that the person being blamed for this was doing anything reckless. Stuff sometimes just happens.
Recommended"I try to be courteous and let people know I am passing but I agree, I shouldn't have to slow down or stop for a slow rider." old&slow
old&slow, presuming you're referring to the extent of your obligation to use the Hawthorne Bridge MUP responsibly, why shouldn't you have to at least slow down for a slow rider? Perhaps if you'd qualified that statement with some specific circumstances such as the slow rider's speed relative to yours, and their relative position on the MUP, your attitude would come across as reasonable.
As it is, I can't tell exactly what your regard for other HBr-MUP users is, but I'd like to think you'd do everything you reasonably could to make the experience as enjoyable and practical as possible. Shouldn't slowing down for slower riders on the HBr-MUP be a reasonable obligation for anyone that chooses to use it?
This bridge path isn't a freeway for bikes with that type of roadway's standard usage. Except for the extraordinary increase in use of the path in recent years by people including those on bikes, for commuting during rush hour, much of the purpose of the bridge path is recreational.
The city encourages the public to do there what the bridge and its path naturally invite people to do: leisurely lallygag along, stopping to rest arms on the railing, legs pitched out at an angle away from the wall to take in the view.
That isn't to say that by right, the slowest person on the path dictates maximum speed for the entire crossing. They, once alerted of a faster rider's approach, have a reasonable responsibility to make allowance for that person to pass. Certainly though, the person overtaking them may have to temporarily slow down until they've moved to make sufficient clearance for the faster person passing. I personally just don't feel it's unreasonable for them to be obliged to do that.
I've ridden the HBr-MUP, though not during rush hour. Still, from pictures and descriptions of the situation, I think I understand fairly well just how serious is this situation on the bridge. It seems close to being out of control. The city has got to do something about it soon, and hopefully they will. At any rate, I would hope everyone could commonly recognize that in the circumstances that the bridge path presents, a little flexibility in their general expectations is called for.
RecommendedIt's starting to come to the point where pedistrians are looking at cyclists like cyclists look at motor vehicles. Bikers are now the new enemy. And I see many walkers and runners wearing iPods that can't hear you if you blew an air horn at them. These bells are band-aids.
Don't get me started on roller bladers who manage to take the entire width of a path.
RecommendedWSBOB #70:
I don't always agree with you, nor you me, and that's OK (good in fact). Your comment is right on the money and is exactly my take on this too. Could'nt have said it better myself!
THANK YOU!
Recommendedwsbob, let me clarify, I didn't mean I don't slow down when I pass people, I meant I don't have to ride at someones elses speed and stay behind as I think some people are suggesting. By the way I avoid the Hawthorne and ride over the Broadway. It is much narrower but still has a lot of people and I have never seen a problem with people passing on it.
Recommended"So, BikePortland and apparently many of those who read it, advocate flooding the streets with incompetent, for any number of reasons, riders and then want to stand back and lambast the COMPETENT cyclists for going too fast when an accident occurs. For not getting into the, "Can't we all just get along", spirit of accommodating rude, unskilled, out-of-shape, and insanely entitled, newcomers."
Best thing I have read all day. I don't think the passing cyclist who "caused" the crash is responsible. He had clearly already been passing when the "victim" swerved into him (their handlebars touched). She could have slowed down and waited instead of merging into him.
And everyone, cut the righteous indignation, it makes you all look ignorant.
RecommendedHey thanks old&slow. I really appreciate that. Interesting the right-wing thing though. I get that all the time. I self identify as a liberal Democrat. I wonder where my wires are crossed?
I wasn't even that interested in this darn incident. I have, "gone-off", on it like no other in a while though. I wonder why that is? My comments here over the last year or so have raised heck with my personal life. Seriously. Blown a few good job opportunities, alienated some old friends... I'm usually trying to tone down. Not this time. Went off. Oh well.
I'm a local which means I subscribe to a local brand of politics. I've had an incredibly rough life, so I'm pretty unforgiving, and lack compassion. When I extended my hand for my entitlement the, "NO WHITE GUYS", sign was usually lit so when others reach for theirs, well I kinda resent it and lash out.
This particular cycling group is incredibly entitled and I guess that's why I'm always at odds with them, coming across as much nastier than I really am.
Is that, "Right Wing"?
RecommendedRixtr #65, Why are you on my six with the personal attacks again? Why can't you simply counter my argument, and discuss something? I don't mind, and frequently use an insulting tone, but I don't make it acutely personal. Why do you also persist in posting conjecture, and unsupported assertions?
Look, the bicycle was invented, by all accounts near the date you say bells were mandated for bicycles. So I'm dubious about the notion that legislation was already being drafted. Fine. Doesn't matter anyway. No one is arguing that a bell serves no purpose on a bicycle.
Really, what do 120 year old traffic regulations have to do with this? I don't know of any law requiring me to install a bell on my bike. I don't know of any law that defines courtesy, or mandates that I use such.
The law and the rules of the road are designed to remove as much of people's personal judgment from driving as possible. There's quite a few of them and they cover a wide range of conflicts. Including safe and legal passing of other road users. So, ring away. Go right ahead. I've already said as much. I'm just not interested in either accepting your courtesy, nor am I obliged to return it. We got rules for that.
Thanks for playing, and I better see comment #65 censored for personal attacks, lest I get the idea the moderation here is biased toward the, "Yes men", if ya knowwhatImeanwinkwink!
RecommendedI feel like an issue here is that there really are not 3 lanes at work on the Hawthorne bridge sidewalk. You've got two "lanes" -- one for peds/joggers and one for bikes. If you are overtaking a pedestrian (or preparing to) then someone should not also be trying to overtake you. This is the most dangerous thing that I see happen. It's not about one cyclist passing another ("so fast! so spandexy! so insane!") it unsafe passing on a narrow throughway.
I really try to give as much deference as possibly to the most vulnerable users which are pedestrians. They can be infuriating to ride around but they are the softest. When overtaking peds walking 3 abreast (on the esplanade, springwater trail, or hawthorne) I will typically slow way down and say, loudly and clearly, "Hi there! Can I pass on your left?" or "Hi -- can I get around you?" They are always surprised but they always allow me and I always say thanks.
There have been a small number of times when I'm trying to get around clueless peds safely when some biker decides to pass both of us. I'm concentrating on the impediment in front of me and just about to jump forward to pass and then some guy jumps in that space. So dangerous and annoying.
If you're the third thing back you've go to assess what the rider in front of you is assessing as well as whether it is safe to pass. The bridge crossing requires a lot of diligence and respect and common sense. I think we all know that and this is a good reminder to take it easy and stay friendly out there.
RecommendedSo Toddistic believe in the "suicidal swerve" theory...just like the motorists who buzz a little too close and then have to explain how they hit and killed a cyclist.
Charming, as usual.
RecommendedVance (not "Lance," sorry, I was tired), #76:
Here's the dilemma: Most people prefer not to be suddenly startled. Pedestrians prefer not to be buzzed by a cyclist they didn't even hear coming (and we can be hard to hear even if the pedestrian isn't zoned out with headphones). Cyclists prefer not to be buzzed by other cyclists they didn't even hear coming, and by cars. Most people prefer to not be passed so close, particularly when the passing is unexpected and involves a greater speed differential. Therefore, the courteous thing to do is to pass wide enough not to startle the person, or if there's not enough room to pass wide, to at least give them some advance notice that you're going to pass, and to do it with a slower speed-- the closer you're passing, the lower your speed differential should be. This holds true whether one is walking, riding, or driving. Then, along comes somebody who not only doesn't appreciate the courtesy (and I'll acknowledge that some people using bells *might* be doing it in a way that says "get out of my way") of being given advance notice of a pass, he actually goes out of his way to prevent the person from passing. Sorry if it offends, Vance, but when you're doing that, you are expecting standards of courtesy to be based on your own personal preferences, rather than on social norms. And the dilemma is this: Does a passing cyclist sound a bell, or not? Is the passing cyclist supposed to be a mind reader-- this pedestrian wants a warning bell, that pedestrian wants no warning bell-- and determine courtesy based on each other person's unspoken subjective preferences? Of course not. The cyclist can't possibly do that, so the only sensible course is to follow some standard of courtesy that most people expect. Perhaps I could have stated it thus to begin with, but perhaps you could have not been asking for a blunter response with your own post.
Now, as for the history of the bicycle, there's a rather long period of development throughout the 19th century, beginning in 1817, and culminating with the "safety bicycle" in 1885. By the 1890s, a massive bicycle craze was sweeping the world, and with it, conflicts were developing between cyclists and other road users. One of the solutions to those conflicts was requiring cyclists to mount bells and lights on their bikes, to enable pedestrians to hear approaching cyclists, and to see them at night. The first bell ordinance was probably New York City's ordinance, passed in 1893. The fact that we're rediscovering the need to resolve conflicts on the roads speaks to the fact that the bicycle itself has been rediscovered.
But you are right, Vance-- there is no law in Oregon requiring you to have or use a bell (although some states do retain those laws). That wasn't really my point, however-- the point was that bells are not some newfangled idea being promoted by "newcomers"-- they've been with us for a very long time, and for good reason. And as more people begin riding, and our roads swell with increased numbers of riders, we're just beginning to rediscover the reason bells are useful.
I do agree with you on this point:
The law and the rules of the road are designed to remove as much of people's personal judgment from driving as possible. There's quite a few of them and they cover a wide range of conflicts. Including safe and legal passing of other road users.
You are absolutely right on that. However, when you take it upon yourself to deliberately (and for emphasis, spell it out) block somebody, as you describe here:
I deliberately impede bell-ringing cyclists on the Hawthorne. Deliberately. Did you get that, d-e-l-i-b-e-r-a-t-e-l-y. I do this as a means of annoying entitled cyclists who use their bell as a, "Get out of my way", button. As a pedestrian with the right-of-way here, I'm willing to risk bodily injury to exercise that right, and hopefully maintain it as well. With that right-of-way, if you injure me, I'll get half your Stumptown paycheck for the rest of what life I don't take from you in tort court.
you are creating the conflict you acknowledge the rules are intended to help us avoid. And you're not even right on the law-- you're dead wrong. If a cyclist attempts to pass you, and you deliberately block the cyclist's path, you won't have a case against the cyclist, even if you are injured, as long as the cyclist made some effort to avoid hitting you. The cyclist is supposed to grant you the right of way on a sidewalk, and is supposed to exercise due care to avoid hitting you. But you are also obligated, by law, to exercise due care, and you've just admitted that you don't exercise due care, and in fact, that you deliberately (spelled out for emphasis) place yourself in the path of cyclists. And that, Vance, is a losing case, as long as the cyclist attempts to avoid hitting you.
RecommendedAfro Biker, #57:
Too many riders in this town think they are in Tour de France. Public paths are not race tracks!
The funny thing is there are real racers in this town who would smoke these racerboys like they're standing still-- and the real racers don't need the pathetic ego boost that the racerboys get from buzzing slower cyclists and pedestrians.
Afro Biker, #71:
It's starting to come to the point where pedistrians are looking at cyclists like cyclists look at motor vehicles. Bikers are now the new enemy.
Yep, you're two for two.
We should be allies with other vulnerable road users. Instead, some of us are just perpetuating a hierarchy of abuse.
And a few years from now, the ones doing it will probably be in their SUVs, buzzing cyclists and yelling at them to get off the road.
RecommendedThe sh**head who passed caused the accident.
Vehicle code dictates that anyone who passes another is responsible for their own safety and those that they pass, AND everyone in the area.
I am just surprised this didn't happen on the westbound side of the bridge at the end of the long decline.
PBOT needs barriers so that bikes can't fall on the grating, and should institute a no passing rule. I don't care if you have to slow down for 2 minutes. 2 minutes to prevent a catastrophe (this accident could of been fatal)? Yeah, that's cheap fare IMO.
RecommendedDude, I'll tell you the same thing I say to people (drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists alike)---sometimes there is traffic and you just need to slow down. In a congested area, you shouldn't go so fast that you need for everyone else to do everything right and pay perfect attention--it just isn't going to happen. Granted, this bridge isn't really designed well for the amount of traffic it carries. That means you need to be MORE careful. Take it easy, get across the bridge, then you can pick up the pace again.
RecommendedQuoting #62: "I deliberately impede bell-ringing cyclists on the Hawthorne. Deliberately. Did you get that, d-e-l-i-b-e-r-a-t-e-l-y. I do this as a means of annoying entitled cyclists who use their bell as a, "Get out of my way", button. As a pedestrian with the right-of-way here, I'm willing to risk bodily injury to exercise that right, and hopefully maintain it as well. With that right-of-way, if you injure me, I'll get half your Stumptown paycheck for the rest of what life I don't take from you in tort court."
Have you got that, people? Lance is planning to obstruct cyclists who use a bell to signal their intent to pass and is looking forward to being injured so he can sue. I suggest everybody bookmark this page so you can access it and use it as evidence in case you are ever victimized by his plan.
RecommendedPeople...you gotta remember to shut off the italics. Hope this works:
old&slow, thanks for the clarification (#73). Kind of imagined from other comments you've offered, that you are willing to slow down prior to passing slower riders, but unfortunately, I don't think everyone is.
Everyone else that has found some sensible points made in comments I've posted on this topic...thanks for noting that ! And of course, glad to have been able to offer something constructive to you all.
Toddistic #74, I don't think the general direction of comments made on this thread has been to unreasonably criticize competent riders as you suggest, or make excuses for the "...rude, unskilled, out-of-shape, and insanely entitled, newcomers.". The direction of many comments has been to recognize that amongst people making their way across the HBr-MUP, there exists a considerable range of experience and skills related to safely and considerately doing this.
People riding bikes that have acquired advanced skills and competence through many hours on the pedals in wide ranging circumstances must recognize the extra consideration required to navigate their way safely along this path during rush hour amongst the less experienced and conditioned.
The anonymous passing rider took some care in passing the slower rider, and he deserves credit for that. I think it's important to consider though, that that he says in his account of the incident: "When I was parallel with her handle bars she turned her bicycle to the left and our handle bars slightly hit each other." The distance the two riders were apart from each other before the slower rider turned her bike to the left is not stated.
That would seem to be an important detail. If they were so close that to stay apart would have required each rider to maintain a very straight line, that would probably have been too close to reasonably expect inexperienced or non-performance riders to hold. Race or sport touring experienced riders could probably be expected to hold the line, but within the close constraints of the HBr-MUP, even they might be taking a risk in the maneuver that the anonymous passing rider describes.
RecommendedHis account just confirms he caused the accident. On a busy crowded day, if someone refuses to get out of your way, tough luck. Just slow down and deal. We now have car mentality creeping into cycling. I don't think people should be obligated to get out of your way if they judge it is not safe for them to do so or if they can't hear you or your calling and bell-ringing confuses them. Like someone mentioned in the other thread, the cyclist in front (ie the person being over-taken not the overtaker) should have the right of way.
Want to haul arse? Take a bridge where you can ride on the road with cars and not peds. Even though there is a marked bike lane, the Hawthorne Bridge is a sidewalk and it is time we cyclists started treating it like one.
You simply can't expect to get people to move safely out of your way all the time, when it is as crowded as it is becoming these days.
RecommendedSorry I still dont understand how guy passing on the left is 100% responsible. He was clearly passing her. She merged left into him to go around some pedestrians. If I was passing someone then they merged left there would be little I could do.
Further, if you are driving on the freeway and you are coming upon a slow moving truck you don't merge left to pass them when there is someone next to you. You hit the brakes, wait for the left lane to be clear and move on.
This is where the ambiguity of a MUP comes into play without clear lanes. Sure, you can get holier than thou on the guy passing but I personally believe BOTH riders bear the responsiblity and are BOTH to blame for not being aware of their surroundings.
RecommendedI've been in AC's shoes. I was pacing with another fast guy. Add in a tailwind, and I was set to break my record time home. A slow bike ahead. And another oncoming. Do I hit the brakes? Will the guy on my wheel slow in time? Can I, and the guy behind me, pass before the two slowpokes meet?
I went for it, split the lane, and it was waaay to close. Luckily (accidentally?) there was no collision and nobody went down.
The person I 'buzzed' was my cube mate. The next day she said she had the shit scared out of her, and I had to admit it was me, and apologize profusely.
AC: to hell with 'trajectories' and 'aggregate speed' and the rest of the distancing clinical language. You were going too fast, and precipitated the 'accident'.
You're not a bad person. You don't deserve all the demonizing on here. You just need to apologize, pony up for the bike and don't make the same mistake next time.
RecommendedThe Hawthorne Bridge is dangerous--there needs to be a barrier between the sidewalk and roadway.
Recommendedtoddistic (#86), when you're passing somebody, it is up to you to do it safely. This includes (but is not limited to) assessing what the other users around you are doing. Passing a cyclist who is passing a pedestrian at the same time on a crowded multi-use path is pretty dicey at best. Sounds like the passer was a somewhat experienced cyclist, and chose to pass where there was just barely enough room. Just barely enough room is NOT enough room in a situation where there are pedestrians going both ways, and cyclists of varying levels of skill using what is probably an inadequate facility. You just cannot depend on everyone "holding their line" or "keeping their trajectory" (have they been fired from a cannon?) or whatever. Slow down, take the extra 36 seconds (per post #2), and remember that you're not the only user on the road. I think "do unto others" should be the rule here. Don't make any passes that, if it were done by someone in an SUV around a group of cyclists you were riding with, would endanger you.
Recommended@ toddistic #86
A key difference is that the speed difference between a car and a slow moving truck is significantly less (proportionately) than the difference between a bicycle and a pedestrian.
Also, if you are behind someone and judging whether you should pass them, and you can see that there are pedestrians in front of them and that they're about to move into the passing lane - if you are a competent enough cyclist to note all of this that's happening in front of you and yet you decide to blow through and pass the other cyclist anyway, that makes you a huge JERK.
If you are too in your "zone" to actually be looking ahead of you and anticipating what other users of the roadway are doing, that makes you incompetent and dangerous and you have no business on the road, path, or anywhere there are other people.
Recommended@ everyone else
Seriously, what is up with these people pretending their commute is the Tour?
I got yelled at by some dude because I let a car merge in front of me across the bike lane into a right turn lane, and the driver ended up blocking the lane so we had to wait an extra few seconds until we could pass the car. Note that the guy who yelled at me was wearing spandex AND carrying panniers. Lance Armstrong must be scared.
RecommendedHow come "victim cyclist" isn't being chided for not using a readily available rear view mirror? Why didn't she use a hand signal to communicate intent to faster moving cyclists behind? Did she correctly "bell" the ped? Did she slow down and shoot a look to the rear? Blah... blah...
Much ado about NOTHING! Some "me first" path users exercising little common sense or skill got into a tangle and, thankfully, all survived to tell the tale.
By all means let's wring our hands, stomp our feet, and peck our keyboards really hard advocating for a proper nanny state solution. Build a barrier on the Hawthore that squeezes path traffic tighter? I can't wait for the first lawsuits against the city when some noob hooks the barrier with his bars and gets thrown over the rail into car traffic or onto the path causing a multi-user pileup. Why not just impose a 5MPH limit on the bridge so that the PPB can ticket cyclists, fit runners, and a few power walkers for going too darn fast? (That would actually give BikePortland scads of thread opportunities!) Wait a minute, mandatory minimum sentences in PMITA prison for anything not deemed "nice cycling" that makes new cyclists feel fat, unloved, or unwelcome?
This site is fast becoming like Oregon Live's forums. The same handful of posters trotting out the same tired rants (car's fault! Sam's fault! Spandex dude's fault! Government's fault! God's fault! The Man(tm) trampling my precious non-Constitutional and imaginary freedoms!) for nearly every topic and thinking that X amount of taxpayer's dollars or education or banning something or fear of the death penalty or some other proposal will magically turn the populace into Stepford citizens.
Sheesh!
RecommendedWhile not an aggressive cyclist by any means (hey, I actually stop at redlights and stop signs believe it or not -- unlike soooo damn many of my fellow cyclists in town), I do like to ride fast. To me, this is a good reminder that stuff happens, and to keep it slow on congested roads and give plenty of room when passing.
Of course, it sill would be nice if folks didn't ride all the way to the left in the bike lane, going 10 mph, with headphones on. Hard to hear a bell when you are jamming out . . . .
RecommendedThere are always 2 sides to a story....
RecommendedMany Variables....
Many people have IPods or other music in their ear while riding....When announcing your presence and/or your intent to pass...its hard to know if the person in front of you actually even heard your voice and/or bell. When in doubt slow down....
Everyone please continue to ignore the fact that he was directly to her LEFT when the collision occured (their handlebars touched)! He was in process of passing, as I said, she has the same ammount of responsiblity to slow down if conditions warrent it (which she did not).
Recommended@ toddistic #95
Quote from Anonymous Rider (in the article, above):
"As I came up on a woman, she was riding just to the right of the middle of the path. There was a person that I would estimate walking 15-20 feet directly ahead of the woman."
Yes, he was passing her, but he initiated his pass with the knowledge that his doing so would force her to STOP in order not to run into the pedestrians. (Seriously. 15-20 ft is only a couple of seconds of riding.) In other words, she was riding slightly in the right lane (the pedestrian lane!) but it was clear that she would imminently be moving left around the pedestrian - ie, back into the bike lane. He chose to pass her anyway.
How on earth can you argue that what he did was safe, that he had the right of way when he was behind her? The Hawthorne Bridge only has one bike "lane" on each side. Safe and conscientious riding means looking ahead enough to anticipate what other people will be doing, not siezing the right of way and expecting other people to act accordingly.
RecommendedNB: were you there?
My point was that she bears some responsibility to slow down and check her blindspots, etc. if conditions warrent it. And more importantly, the guy does not deserve the demonizing that is going on right now.
Recommendedtoddistic: Were you?
No? How do you know the guy didn't ride alongside her and deliberately push her off the bikeway and onto the grating? How do you KNOW that didn't happen?
Seriously. I am NOT suggesting that actually did happen; I am pointing out that you don't "know" what happened better than anyone else on this board. And frankly, I am not trying to "demonize" the Anonymous Rider. I'm sure he's an upstanding citizen (unless he isn't) and he obviously didn't just ride off after the girl fell onto the grating. The discussion here is about the ethics of concientious riding, with most people having the opinion that riders in general should not ride so fast unless it is safe to do so (which we all pretty much agree is not the case when the Hawthorne Bridge is crowded).
My comment above about the kind of unsafe riding you seem to endorse making someone a "jerk" was not directed at the Anonymous Rider but at you. The point is that there is not enough space for everyone to go as fast as they want, and that regardless of which "lane" you are in, you should yield the road to people ahead of you if you anticipate that they will need that space to avoid pedestrians. Basically, no one on a bike should ever "take" right of way, especially not on a crowded bridge with mixed pedestrian and bike traffic and a steel grating on the other side.
Recommendedget well!! face slides hurt..
careful everyone, lets show the car culture we can get along...
Joe
RecommendedWell, it was nice of him to admit that he was the overtaking rider and aware that he had a duty to prevent a collision. (Note the word collision. This was not an accident.) I admire a guy who is willing to forthrightly establish his liability in the matter.
RecommendedToddistic:
She had no duty whatsoever except to cyclists and pedestrians that she was overtaking. Not sure where you came up with the idea that she was responsible in any way for an overtaking cyclist.
RecommendedDid this man ever have an exchange with the cyclist to apologize to her or express any concern? am i just missing that in this letter?
I myself could have used some reassurance that this rider has learned his lesson. Otherwise, he is still riding out there, with US and seems totally unapologetic and does not seem to reflect upon his own actions whatsoever.
I can appreciate that he remained anonymous. I would never want to publicly stand behind this kind of a letter either. But, I'm me and I would have written that even if the fall was not directly related to me, I would be open to considering how to modify my actions to PREVENT further incidents:
how loud are you calling out "left"? I had to get a bell so that the sound pierces through the air. THe doppler sound effect and my soft voice are not enough to warn peds or cyclists. the bell works much better.
are you going to slow down??!
and finally, PLEASE Do not lecture at me about what to keep in mind or what to remember -- I tend to be a fairly objective observer, probably from my years as a lifeguard. When I see someone hurt I do not immediately think of the blame game, my first thought is to minister to their pain or trauma.
thank you.
RecommendedI was in a similar crash on the Hawthorne Bridge. I passed someone on their left and he moved over which pushed me off the sidewalk onto the grated bridge. After flying through the air I landed in rush hour traffic. It is dangerous and the jabs at the guy who passed the other cyclist are not helpful.
RecommendedThere are so many people riding without helmets out there! Wear your helmet!!!!
"Wear your helmet!!!!"
No.
Recommendedsteve #104 Can I get an Amen!
"Wear your helmet!!!!"
No.
Why?
You wanna wear a little styrofoam cup on your head, more power to you. You wanna pay my insurance, then maybe we can talk. Until then, I'd like to see a little more prudence used in deciding what superfluous garbage you wear on your head, and advocate for.
Motorcycle helmets do something. Bicycle helmets are an affectation used by rookie cyclists to declare that they didn't buy their bike at Wal-Mart. Or old people still caught up in the 70s, and the fight to have motorcyclists viewed as something other than long-haired outlaws.
You aren't benefiting anything, so there must be another reason you all wear your little toy helmets. For most of you, your position belies your true intent. Most of you wear a helmet out of allegiance to some dress-code you've been led to believe identifies you as a, "serious", cyclist.
This explains your fervor. If you convince me to don one of those things, then you look that much less ridiculous. I get it, I get it.
A BICYCLE helmet may save you some dermal-lacerations. At a low enough speed it might even prevent a MILD concussion. The price for these less-than-substantial/significant benefits is reduced range of motion thereby limiting field of vision, neck injuries from friction, the thing accidentally falling down and impairing your vision, the loss of cold-weather gear (If your helmet fits over a stocking-cap it's too big.), just to name a few.
Then this. The first significant bump any helmet, including motorcycle ones, takes the helmet is done. After-all, you want to split hairs to justify using one, so I'll do the same un-justifying it. If the shell over the styrofoam is compromised, even microscopically, the helmets effectiveness is reduced to near zero. That means all you helmet-nazis need to replace your funny hat every time you drop it, sit on it, bang it on your bike, etc. You don't, so you obviously have some other agenda than safety.
THAT's why I must counter each and every one of you helmet nuts. The fact is most of you helmet wearers are using defective safety equipment to start with, AND you advise I do the same.
Like steve said:
No.
Recommended'nazi'? Who's the nazi? Vance, you seem to be doing an extraordinary job of being one in comment #105. steve and Vance, do whatever you want. You don't want to wear a bike helmet? By all means, don't.
But please, as you enjoy your liberty to not wear one, try not to contribute to screwing up someone else's life, causing them bodily harm through, the uninformed, ignorant, spoiled rambling both of you seem to enjoy using to attempt to discourage people from wearing bike helmets.
You two dudes talk like examples of the last type of people to whom I'd ever recommend wearing a helmet.
RecommendedAll I said was 'no' Bob. Remind me who is rambling again?
RecommendedIf anyone feels like wearing a helmet, make sure it FITS. Wearing a loose, poorly-positioned (too far back), or ill-fitting helmet is almost worse than nothing.
RecommendedAnd if you think your kids should wear helmets, then probably should as well, whether you think you need to or not.
I don't care if people wear or not, but nothing make me shake my head like a bare headed parent following a helmeted kid.
RecommendedEl Biciclero, this is true. It should fit close, but not tight. My helmet fit allows room to wear a bandana between the helmet and my head, that I've knotted to improvise a kind of skull cap for cool weather riding. Without the bandana, the fit is looser... good for warm weather ...but not so loose the helmet slops around.
I don't know what kind of experience it is that people so opposed to others wearing bike helmets could have had to make them attempt to so vigorously dissuade others of the benefit of wearing a bike helmet, but I think the result is unfortunate.
On editor Maus's other story:
Rider injured on Hawthorne Bridge shares her side of the story
about the collision and crash, the thoughts of Erica Rothman (the young woman that was injured)about the question of whether to wear a helmet were summarized by editor Maus as follows:
One thing she knows for sure is that she’ll never bike without a helmet again. She had one on during this recent crash, but told me she sometimes (used to) go without. editor Maus
Recommended@ bob
FWIW -
Vance is a blowhard, but there is evidence that helmets are not all they cracked (ha) up to be. At the very least, they are only really useful at lower speeds, and community initiatives to spread helmet use come at the cost of better educating riders how to avoid crashing (into cars) in the first place. See http://bicyclesafe.com/helmets.html. Anti-helmet sites such as that also make an interesting point about helments being used to create a notion of bicycling as "dangerous," which is patently untrue (statistically) compared to most anything else, especially driving.
That said, I wear a helmet, and don't plan to stop doing so. I'm not sure I agree that a helmet impedes your range or motion or anything like that (stocking caps aside), though the noise of wind through the helmet vents sure is annoying. Low level injury prevention seems like a useful thing. I also don't think helmets signify someone as a "serious" rider as Vance suggests - I would say that SPD pedals and spandex tend to play that role.
Should Erica have worn/not worn her helmet? This question seems kind of irrelevant. The more important question is how we can make the stream of traffic safer for everyone, including getting all riders to ride better as a group (less passing, more even flow). If all riders would just file across the bridge without trying to overtake each other, keep a safe distance away from each other, etc., bumping someone into the grating seems less likely. (Though with that said, until all bicyclists are robots who keep a constant distance from each other, and cars are outlawed on the roads, helmets seem like a useful safety precaution for a chaotic world. Just don't think that a helmet makes you immune from stupidity or bad riding.)
Recommended@Ethan #8 (and anyone else...)
I've had the same thing happen with people walking toward me... I've started saying "PASSING... On your left" You have to look a bit further ahead, but it works much better to get a peds attention with "passing".
Also, I know many (most?) riders aren't calling out passing because 1. they never do when they pass me and 2. people look surprised or relieved when I do say passing.
Best, T
Recommendedit really doesn't do any good, ringing a bell or saying... yelling... singing....communicating... "on your left!" if the person "being passed" has white or black wires coming out their ears. I sit (i.e. coast) behind joggers often- "on your left", *ding*, ding, ding *ding*....they cant hear me cuz they gots their iTunes turned up. not safe...not safe at all...for anyone. give respect, get respect.
Recommended