Downes & Reader lumber truck hits and kills cyclist

[B A R R Y]

Cyclist is dead, driver taken to hospital for "breathing problems".

As a D&R customer and cyclist, I'm keeping all involved in my thoughts.

[henry]

As a Cyclist and customer my thoughts and prayers to the both the cyclist and drivers families.

[Wilson]

[Mark & Juanita]

Good advice. Folks who like scooters, four-wheelers, or other recreational vehicles don't get to use the public roadways.

Certainly there are rude drivers, but most of the rudeness and arrogance I've seen has been on the other side. Even when they are given a wide, dedicated bicycle lane, these lugnuts insist on riding in the bike lane right *on* the white line next to traffic, forcing traffic to move to the left, often violating lane markers to allow the cyclists their state-given

5 feet of clearance.

I live on a road that is two-lane with approximately a 12 to 18 inch blacktop shoulder. This particular road has several corners and curves around hills. Speed limit on the road is 45 and should be that speed for the area in which we live. It is a low-density population area with approximately 4 miles of travel to reach the nearest highway, any slower would be a travesty and inconvenience to those who live in this area and use that road to travel to work and engage in commerce. We have a significant number of cyclists who use the road for recreational purposes and are dead-set that they are going to enforce their right to make sure that cars give them the legal 5 feet of clearance out of the roadway by riding on the white line or to the lane side of the white line. Forcing traffic to swerve around them to give them the clearance requires the passing car to use the oncoming lane. Someday one of these cyclists is going to be on the blind side of one of those hills and a car is going to have to decide between a head-on collision or hitting the cyclist. While the cyclist may be in the right as far as the clearance to be allowed, being right doesn't make up for somebody being dead.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

[RicodJour]

You seem to have skipped over the operative word - public.

As far as the other stuff (pick one): It's a two way street. Live and let live. Can't we all just get along?

R

[Al]

I understand what you say about being aware of cyclists. If we (motorist) are supposed to be held liable for violating the rules of the road then to should the cyclists since the law clearly states that they are to adhere to the rules of the road as well. Not saying its right or wrong that a motorist rarely gets convicted of anything but perhaps its because the law recognizes that the cyclist was in clear violation of the law? There is a reason when I drive I stay as far as I can away from the side of the road, you never know when some idiot is going to pop out on foot, skateboard, or bike. 20 years ago I hit a guy that ran out into the road from between two cars without looking. He did not get hurt as I did stop but I am sure he did learn a lesson since he did make contact with my Dodge PW pickup. I do agree that motorist need to be more observant, how ever law enforcement needs to hear that sucking sound of their ears clearing as the pull their heads out and start to be fair about enforcing the rules/laws of the road. This would save lives and make the cyclist aware that they are supposed to obey the law to. A couple days ago I was in downtown Portland and had a cyclists run a red light in front of me and a local cop. Did the cop do anything even though it was a violation of the law? No! I would bet you dollars to the cops doughnuts that if it were a car he would have went after him and wrote a ticket. There is a famous quote that law enforcement likes to use (if you ever watch Cop's you've heard it) ignorance of the law is no excuse. I believe in equal rights strongly and this is one of the areas I would like to see it enforced. It would save lives if the people knew there would be a fine or some kind of punishment for the cyclists (like there is supposed to be) as well like the motorist would get. From my experience this is my opinion such as it is.

Al

"Bruce T" wrote in message news:m42dnewGdflbI [e-mail]...

The law does say they have to. If you are on a road on a bike, motorcycle, car, truck, etc... you have to adhere to the rules of the road. You may not have to be licensed to ride a bike but you are supposed to signal and obey traffic signs just as a motorized vehicle.

If you think I am wrong then go here:

to avoid becoming a grease spot,

[Al]

Oregon even has a manual for bicyclist:

[George E. Cawthon]

Lots of places have manuals for bicyclists. But state, county, and city laws are often quite different. For example, within a city limits, the rules for stopping at stop signs may be quite different from the State rules for other roads. Finding those rules may be somewhat difficult and most people that don't ride a bicycle don't have a clue about the city rules or even know of such a thing. As a consequence there are always people incorrectly stating what bicyclists can and can not do. Heck most people don't even know or adhere to the pedestrian rules!

[CW]

[Mark & Juanita]

... so, wouldn't it make way more sense to have the same rules that apply to cars apply to bicycles unless real road signs say something different? For example, here there are some signs along some roadways that state "Right turn yield to bicycles". In those places it makes sense because the car will be turning across a bicycle lane and the sign indicates to the driver that there is an additional hazard.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

[Al]

In this state it is supposidly the law. Both act stupid unfortunately cyclists are no match for a car.

It is never the less the law

per the oregon state police. I do agree that auto drivers needs to be more aware and that there should be no cell phone use unless it is completely hands free. I don't make the laws I do however do my best to follow them. This was no attack on anyone and should not have been taken as such.

Al

[Al]

Why the anger? Why are you on the attack? I don't care how many people don't exercise that has nothing to do with what was said. I mearly pointed out a the law. To be honest I had someone read it before I posted it so no one would take it as a attack and low and behold you did. walking to a building from a parking lot has nothing to do with obeying the law. I think it's great to exercise if that is what you want but it like holding an umbrella to cover your head when the building is falling on you. The cyclist would be safer if he followed the law and stopped and signalled.average car 2k lbs cyclist 100lbs to 250lbs. I am no physics major but the 2k will win. So hopefully both will follow the law and be aware of their surroundings.

In this state it is supposidly the law. Both act stupid unfortunately cyclists are no match for a car.

It is never the less the law

per the oregon state police. I do agree that auto drivers needs to be more aware and that there should be no cell phone use unless it is completely hands free. I don't make the laws I do however do my best to follow them. This was no attack on anyone and should not have been taken as such.

Al

[Al]

----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark & Juanita" Newsgroups: rec.woodworking Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 5:42 PM Subject: Re: Downes & Reader lumber truck hits and kills cyclist

Then they should.

Then if the car did not yield yes they deserve and should get a ticket.

In this state it is supposidly the law. Both act stupid unfortunately cyclists are no match for a car.

It is never the less the law

per the oregon state police. I do agree that auto drivers needs to be more aware and that there should be no cell phone use unless it is completely hands free. I don't make the laws I do however do my best to follow them. This was no attack on anyone and should not have been taken as such.

Al

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

[George E. Cawthon]

[George E. Cawthon]

[Al]

Forgive me

Al

[Tom Watson]

"In Pennsylvania, a bicycle is considered a vehicle and, as such, is governed by a general set of rules (common to all vehicles) and a specific set of rules (designed for bicycles). The following annotated list provides all of the important sections of the Vehicle Code which a Pennsylvania bicyclist should know. Keep in mind that the laws themselves often describe only what a bicyclist is required to do, not how to do it. This manual addresses how to bicycle safely and efficiently by following the rules of the road. "

Tom Watson

tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)