not what you are expecting on your morning cycle....

[youtube]oQtudJ3cxvg[/youtube]

The car driver is obviously a dik head.
...but so was the bike rider. He was not aware of what was happening and didnt exactly take much evasive action ??

The Virginia Department of Transportation said Monday that the driver of an SUV that struck a bicyclist on the crossing this weekend was a bridge tender heading to a shift change, something that signs warn of along the route.

Click to expand...

http://hamptonroads.com/2014/06/car-bicycle-collide-pedestrian-path

Now why do they need to drive through there?

Ya it almost seemed like if the biker rode to the right and shifted his weight right he could have squeaked past the car. Granted the car was not supposed to be there, but at those speeds there is no reason to not try and maneuver around it, or stop.

I did like the traditional 4 letter swear word at the end. means for a good day of riding.

Notice the UV-clouded plastic headlight cover on the right side of the SUV and the brand new headlight plastic on the left. Hmm, I wonder if that SUV has hit something else recently?

There isn't enough room for that SUV and even one pedestrian. What would it do when encountering a wheelchair, back up? Madness.

That truck is going too fast in a pedestrian only lane. Looks like 15-20mph to me when it should be going 5mph.

Why didn't the truck use the traffic lanes with all the other cars?

sign or not, grounds for a lawsuit.

Looks to me like another case of '2 to Tango'. One should NOT have to deal with autos on on a pedestrian walk, but paying a modicum of attention when biking can help prevent this type of accident.

cal3thousand said:

Looks to me like another case of '2 to Tango'. One should NOT have to deal with autos on on a pedestrian walk, but paying a modicum of attention when biking can help prevent this type of accident.

Click to expand...

You could say the same for a kid getting run over on a playground. "Why didn't the little urchin read the sign?"

We should not have to tolerate cars where they are not expressly allowed to be, and the consequences should be 100.0% on the car driver in such cases.

wow peter is this you, hope your ok

car drivers fault and he was going way to fast.

not me Jesse, it was in the US...
I think I may have done more damage to the car as well if it was me...

i sure would do some damage

question is what is the car doing on a footpath ?

Chalo said:

cal3thousand said:

Looks to me like another case of '2 to Tango'. One should NOT have to deal with autos on on a pedestrian walk, but paying a modicum of attention when biking can help prevent this type of accident.

Click to expand...

You could say the same for a kid getting run over on a playground. "Why didn't the little urchin read the sign?"

We should not have to tolerate cars where they are not expressly allowed to be, and the consequences should be 100.0% on the car driver in such cases.

Click to expand...

I only said that AFTER watching the video and noticing that the biker could have maneuvered out of the way. I'm not giving a pass to the driver, but more attention would have made this no more than a "close call". They must have both been admiring the same scenery

Maybe the cyclist just wants a new bike from the car drivers insurance?
I know this only from car drivers which meet up and do crashes than repair it cheaper than the money they get from insurance.
This was the perfect situation for this becouse no car is there allowed and he have video evidence.

That was a tricky one!! there clearly was not enough room for them both to pass so unless the car stopped it was going to happen! The car should not have been there so he is to blame, the cyclist and the car would have had more warning had the cyclist not been hugging the inner wall, there is far more visibility ahead to be had from across the path. Something taught to motorcyclists during basic training and a very obvious way to improve your own safety. The rider was clearly not using all the available self preservation techniques which could have given more time to prevent this.

I know he wasn't expecting it so why look for it? there could have been a dangerous dog, or a hole in the floor, always give yourself as much visibility as possible! and ride at a speed so that you can stop within your visible distance, or get hurt! simples.

Having watched it again there was room for them to pass and 4 seconds warning, was the rider day dreaming too!!

To me, it looks like the bike was trying to own the path and force the car to stop, rather than going around...the car however seems to speed around him without any indication of slowing.
He seems to try and maneuver out of the way at the last second when he realized that the car wasn't stopping.

I thought he may have taken a dive at first since he had the camera and it's an easy lawsuit...but after watching a few times it looks like everything did happen faster than he was expecting/prepared for. he seems legitimately distraught at the end too

r3volved said:

To me, it looks like the bike was trying to own the path and force the car to stop, rather than going around...the car however seems to speed around him without any indication of slowing.
He seems to try and maneuver out of the way at the last second when he realized that the car wasn't stopping.

I thought he may have taken a dive at first since he had the camera and it's an easy lawsuit...but after watching a few times it looks like everything did happen faster than he was expecting/prepared for. he seems legitimately distraught at the end too

Click to expand...

I agree. except for the "he" part. It was a girl that got hit on the bike. You can see her fingernail in the video's stop frame before starting it.

Ah...sounds like a guy's voice at the end though.
What, you never did the black nail polish and make-up phase?

r3volved said:

Ah...sounds like a guy's voice at the end though.
What, you never did the black nail polish and make-up phase?

Click to expand...

Totally sounded like a man... so I'm not sure who it was that yelled out.

And my fingernail phase never coincided with any of my biking phases though

an update - policy of allowing vehicles on the bridge has changed. In the story, the (female) cyclist decsribes her point of view. An interesting twist - she is a "self-described bike safety advocate"....

http://www.wvec.com/my-city/norfolk...Bridge-collides-with-bicyclist-263224301.html

If it's called a 'Pedestrian Pathway,' how many of your states allow bicycles there? Would you want to avoid being caught with an electric?

It's funny, all the comments about the rider not paying attention, the driver not paying attention, but people are commenting without noticing what they are saying is wrong.

The woman had been online posting her complaints for 2 days before the video went up here, there's been some serious discussion, though not among powers that be. They were doing a better job of reading and sticking to the facts on other forums. But here we go, the 3rd post on this one had the quote that the driver WAS allowed to be there and why, as well as a link to an article, yet people are still commenting that they think the driver wasn't supposed to be there.

This is how stories get really twisted around and no longer resemble the truth. The details were right out in front.

Not only did the article call the rider a woman, but the swearing before the truck appeared and after she was down were both clearly female, as was the scream. (If a guy sounded like that people would say he screamed like a girl.) Given the differing angles of the headlights the other doesn't have to be fogged at all.

I'm used to being able to look at things 30 frames a second, this is only about a second a frame, but I'm thinking she's going faster than the truck, which moves to the right and is stopping but maybe not completely stopped as they hit. This by trying to use the visible squares on the screen for reference, better if there's several frames per second. 4 seconds between the truck coming in view and her screaming. The fisheye effect of the lens makes this difficult, but the black line on the left is about half the width of the truck from the wall, as much as 2 1/2 feet, not counting the drivers rear view mirror there's at least three feet to the other wall. She had about 5 seconds from the time the truck entered the frame to move over a foot, the mirror might have still got her but they snap backwards. She can't have been paying attention. This is a hitting the side of the truck situation, probably quite lucky for her she was to that side instead of in the middle.

Dang, if it was me riding there and suddenly seeing a car coming at me I'd probably be hitting that chain link fence on top before it ever got there. How could she spend 4 seconds not freaking out?

So they don't even know who to call when there's an accident? And they call themselves a bureaucracy? Do these bridge tenders need cars or karts? they can't send them on a more pedestrian compatible bicycle? (Oh wait, that IS a BUREAUCRACY. . . .)

Should be called, "2 idiots meet on a bridge". Both should have, and easily could have, stopped prior to a moving impact.

Some facts:
Motorized vehicles are allowed though peds have right of way.
Used with some frequency by maintenance vehicles (driver is maintenance worker in personal vehicle).
Camera left of center.
Woman cyclist.