Advertisement

Archive for Saturday, August 16, 2008

Truck strikes bicycle; no major injuries reported

A cyclist gathers his bicycle from the pavement following an accident involving the cyclist and a truck driven by a Wichita couple, right, Saturday, Aug. 16, 2008 at the intersection of Sixth and Kentucky streets.

A cyclist gathers his bicycle from the pavement following an accident involving the cyclist and a truck driven by a Wichita couple, right, Saturday, Aug. 16, 2008 at the intersection of Sixth and Kentucky streets.

August 16, 2008

Advertisement

No major injuries were reported after a truck struck a bicyclist who was pulling a trailer/stroller with a small child in it on Saturday along Sixth Street near Constant Park.

The accident occurred about 2:20 p.m. The truck driven by Shawn Tremblay, of Wichita, was westbound on Sixth Street and attempting to turn north into a drive when it struck the bicycle, which was on the sidewalk crossing the drive, according to Caroline Tremblay, a passenger in the truck. Tremblay said the man on the bicycle was thrown off it.

A Wichita man on the scene who declined to give his name said he was the father of the 2-year-old girl who was in the bicycle trailer. He said the bicyclist was his girlfriend's father and the group was returning from a trip to the Kansas River levee. He said he was in a vehicle and saw the accident in his rearview mirror. Neither the bicyclist nor the girl were transported to the hospital by ambulance, but were expected to be taken by private vehicle for a checkup.

Comments

FMT6488 6 years, 4 months ago

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says: "...while I realize that most attorneys believe that the courts make the law, that is not the case. Laws are written by the elected representatives of the people, and while the courts interpret the legislature's intent when enforcing those laws, there is no guarantee that they get it right." Ok, alllll - righty, then! So we should just ignore all interpretations on laws made by the courts? Maybe we should just do away with the courts entirely? If I remember my civics classes correctly, Legislature creates laws, Police enforce the laws, and the Courts review or interpret the law(s) on a case by case basis.

57chevy 6 years, 4 months ago

These comments certainly speak volumes about Lawrence and it inhabitants. The idea that taking your kid for a bicycle ride in a small midwestern college town (on the sidewalk) is risking his life lets you know that this is not your typical small midwestern town. Go visit Ann Arbor, Madison, Columbia, Iowa City or Lincoln (nearby college towns that welcome bicycling). While Lawrence does have a few educated college types, most don't stay, and their relative proportion of the population is declining. The people who spend more time reproducing with their kids instead of taking them out for a ride are becoming more and more the voice of Lawrence as well as the rest of Kansas. I agree you shouldn't take your kid for a ride in Lawrence, instead you should move to any town in the midwest that still believes in family values and a safe, healthy place to raise your family. As more and more people realize that these NASCAR/Walmart rednecks who are becoming the dominant voice in Lwarence do not stand for family values (unless intolerance, ignorance and viciousness are family values) perhaps there will be an attempt to return safety and decency to Lawrence. it doesn't matter to me. I admit defeat. I'm looking for another job in another state for these very reasons so, as they say, soon you'll be on your own. And no matter what you think, I'm happier for me to be leaving than you are.

JayCat_67 6 years, 4 months ago

No no no Baille; you just don't get it. See, I don't ride bicycles, but I've noticed that some people do and I'll be darned if them slow pokes don't get in MY way. MY time is valuable and I'M certainly not going to waste it just cause some enviro-nazi fitness freak wants to get a little exercise and "save the planet" or some fool thing like that. It's all about ME. Those bicycle riders are just a bunch of idiots and should all be locked up, 'specially if their so irresponsible as to have their kids in a cart behind them. But since our elected officials don't have the cajones to act on this, all I can say to all you bicyclists is, Stay the he!! our of MY way. If I hit you, it's your own da(rn)ed fault for being on that stupid bike to begin with. Get it? ;-P

gccs14r 6 years, 4 months ago

Baille, nota isn't capable of having a logical discussion about anything, so don't bother. He's apparently a member of the small but vocal group of people haters who think that anyone who isn't currently driving 80 mph to somewhere should be killed on sight.

terrapin2 6 years, 4 months ago

I see b3 is still wasting the air they breathe! Such compassion for a grandfather and grandchild riding their bike on a beautiful day! I do hope everyone is OK, both physically and mentally. I know I would be really shaken up if that happened to me with my child in our bike trailer/stroller!

MississippiFrog 6 years, 4 months ago

You should be thankful your town has sidewalks. Where I moved to doesn't have any and it is dangerous to get around town without a car. I can remember the good ole days of skating to work with my inlines in Lawrence. It's a shame folks are quick want to run over people on bikes today.

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 4 months ago

bmaestas: "I'm just glad no one was hurt."I've just navigated the exchanges in this forum, and it's left me limping.

ILoveLawrence 6 years, 4 months ago

I can't believe I'm actually agreeing with Merrill on something.

dirkleisure 6 years, 4 months ago

Indeed.This accident occurred across 6th street from the train park.Perhaps children should not be allowed in strollers in a city park, either.cato_the_demented, indeed.What is truly comical today is how it has consistently been proclaimed that cyclists need to ride on sidewalks or bike paths. Well, this cyclist was riding on a bike path, and was struck anyway.Still, must be grandpa's fault. Laughable, really.

Baille 6 years, 4 months ago

Note to opinionated sphincters: the bike was on the sidewalk. It was not crossing any intersections. The moving trunk was turning into the dirt road that heads down toward the river and failed to yield. Turned right into the cyclists who was lawfully and carefully riding westbound on the north sidewalk.Idiots.

Baille 6 years, 4 months ago

"Stupidity knows no bounds."Well on that we finally agree.

Curtis Martell 6 years, 4 months ago

hawkperchedatriverfront, cato_the_elder you are both idiots.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 4 months ago

Cato-- you might as well say that anyone who doesn't keep their kid stored away in a bunker 20 ft down is putting their kid at risk.

hometownhawk 6 years, 4 months ago

hawkperchedonathroneofidiocy and cato_the_idiot, how much more dangerous is this than taking your child for a walk in a stroller on the sidewalk? Not much. If you want to imprison someone for taking their child for a ride on the levee, then you are nuts. I hope I never meet you in the real world.

Baille 6 years, 4 months ago

"In Kansas, a bicycle is not a vehicle as Kendrick claims. K.S.A.2006 Supp. 8-1485 defines a vehicle as "every device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, except ... devices moved by human power." On the other hand, a bicyclist is also not a pedestrian. K.S.A.2006 Supp. 8-1446 defines a pedestrian as "(a) [a]ny person afoot; (b) any person in a wheelchair, either manually or mechanically propelled, or other low powered, mechanically propelled vehicle designed specifically for use by a physically disabled person; or (c) any person using an electric personal assistive mobility device." However, if a bicyclist operates a bicycle on a roadway, K.S.A. 8-1587 provides that the bicyclist has the same rights and duties applicable to drivers of vehicles. See Morrison v. Hawkeye Casualty Co., 168 Kan. 303, 312, 212 P.2d 633 (1949). Moreover, although bicyclists are not pedestrians, if they use sidewalks they have the same rights as pedestrians and are not subject to vehicular traffic laws. Schallenberger v. Rudd, 244 Kan. 230, 234-35, 767 P.2d 841 (1989)."Kendrick v. Manda, 38 Kan.App.2d 864, (2008).

Baille 6 years, 4 months ago

"But let's face it - a bicycle stops faster than a truck, and a little better attentiveness and defensive driving on the part of the cyclist probably could have avoided this near tragedy."Nope. If the bicycle had stopped dead, the truck would have hit it more squarely.

ridinthefence 6 years, 4 months ago

There are bike paths. Stay off the road and stop putting your life at risk. Nobody WANTS to hit you. You cheat death every day if you ride on the street in a college town, duh....

Keith 6 years, 4 months ago

"b3 (Anonymous) says:Note to bicyclists, stay off the roads."Note to b3, read the article before posting.

Richard Heckler 6 years, 4 months ago

When did talking on a cell phone become legal? Talking while driving could be declared irresponsible driving.Is there an ordinance in Lawrence,Kansas declaring irresponsible driving legal? If my memory serves me well there is an ordinance in Lawrence,Kansas against irresponsible driving.Was the driver of the truck talking on a cell phone? How in the world would a truck run over a bicycle on the sidewalk if the driver had been paying attention?

shoffner 6 years, 4 months ago

I am going to state the obvious here, but we all know this bike debate comes up every single week on this webpage.Here is a link to the EXACT state bike rules, DIRECTLY from the Kansas Department of Transportation: http://www.ksdot.org/burrail/bike/biking/KsBicyStatutes.aspI will not offer my opinion on this subject, because we all know about opinions (and a lot of people around here seem to forget that). Leave the personal attacks on both sides alone, and come up with some real evidence or logical explanation as to why you think the way you do. Not because some people choose to drive SUV's for a multitude of reasons that we may never understand and while others wear spandex with butt pads and ride bikes.People are different, get used to it.

windex 6 years, 4 months ago

b3 and hawk, what the heck is WRONG with you?? Grandpa has his grandchild out for a ride on a beautiful Summer day, on a bike path along the river. On the way home, they're on a sidewalk, crossing a driveway. A truck runs into them; thank God (or the flying pasta monster, or whatever, I don't care) neither Gramps nor the toddler are injured or killed. And you use this as an opportunity to blame Gramps and bash everyone who rides a bicycle? What is wrong with you?

Baille 6 years, 4 months ago

"The law states All bikes must stop for an intersection befor proceding, when safe."No. It doesn't.If i was on a bike and stoped to check before crossing a road or intersection and saw a truck turning in i would wait."Good for you. But that is not what happened here."An intersection is an intersection, whether a street or a drive."No. It's not. "Think before you ride."Think before you post.

crane13 6 years, 4 months ago

obviously hawk p's parents didn't read or take em' outside

notajayhawk 6 years, 4 months ago

Baille (Anonymous) says: "Try again."Well, gee, don't know why I would, since I already said "Now, I realize that 8-1586 does not specifically apply to 8-1575." And I realize the court's interpretation of the statute was to say that the legislature meant to consider the same piece of equipment and it's operator as one thing following one set of rules when traveling on the roads, and as a completely different thing following a completely different set of rules when traveling on a sidewalk - or perhaps that the intent of the legislature was to say that bicyclists have to follow traffic laws in all other cases, but they are allowed to escape those rules by traveling on a path populated by pedestrians - which might be just one of the reasons people hate lawyers. That has, as I also said, nothing to do with common sense. While an attorney may like to split hairs in such a manner and look at such an event as a lucrative money-making situation had this been a fatality, I somehow doubt the parents/son of the passenger/rider in this case would have been so enthusiastic about the opportunities presented - which might be the biggest reason people hate lawyers.

notajayhawk 6 years, 4 months ago

Baille (Anonymous) says: "I have never and will never argue that a cyclist should put himself in danger because the law says he has a right to be where he is."And yet that's what your entire argument consists of. The bicyclist had no way of knowing the truck was coming, Baille? It would have taken waaaay to much effort to, say, glance back over his shoulder before crossing the vehicle path?'Backpedaling,' counselor? Sorry, I was wrong, it wasn't my first post to this thread (which said nothing except questioning the wording of the original story), but my second where I said "I have no reason to doubt the accounts that put the truckdriver at fault and I'm not defending him. But let's face it - a bicycle stops faster than a truck, and a little better attentiveness and defensive driving on the part of the cyclist probably could have avoided this near tragedy." You're correct that it's up there in balck and white. I have said from the beginning, and will continue to say, that whether the truck driver was legally wrong or not, a person towing a child behind a bicycle has a responsibility to be cautious. Are you seriously going to tell me, Baille, that had the bicyclist done so much as glance back over his shoulder before crossing the driveway that he couldn't have avoided the collision? Seriously? Oh, right, for all the cyclists posting here who accuse the car drivers of self-centeredness (including, I believe, you), it doesn't matter if he could have avoided the collision, he shouldn't have had to, right?The time period I was referring to (I know, talking to a lawyer, I can't rely on common sense, I need to spell it out in detail) was the critical point just prior to the impact. One look at the picture will tell you that while yes, the driver should have been paying more attention, the cyclist, with an unrestricted field of view, should have been able to see something as large as the truck, while the truckdriver's field of view was partially blocked by the truck itself, not to mention a passenger. The truckdriver should have taken more care and avoided the collision, but the bicyclist could have done so as well. I hope you take better care when you ride, Baille, particularly if a child's life depends on it.

bad_dog 6 years, 4 months ago

"While an attorney may like to split hairs in such a manner and look at such an event as a lucrative money-making situation had this been a fatality, I somehow doubt the parents/son of the passenger/rider in this case would have been so enthusiastic about the opportunities presented - which might be the biggest reason people hate lawyers."-notajayhawkNota, you are the one trying to split hairs, yet again. As stated above a bicycle is not a vehicle, therefore it isn't subject to the same laws, regulations and ordinances as a vehicle unless it is operated on a street or highway-no matter how you try to spin it or wish it was different.Everyone hates attorneys until they need one. Trust me, just as many attorneys have equal or greater disdain for the ill-informed, speculators that bring nothing more than visceral opinions based upon their warped world view.Whether an attorney or the plaintiff he/she represents gains anything in the event of litigation depends on the facts, the law, the damages and the jury. I trust that if you are ever injured by the negligence of another, you'll maintain the moral high ground and just drag your cynical whimpering butt off to the side of the road.But I'm sure you know more about the laws governing bicycle operation than the Kansas Appellate Courts. After all, what do they know about legislative intent-they're just busy with their own agendas, right? One of the primary functions of any Court is construing legislative intent whenever they interpret statutes. Do you believe they just guess like you so apparently do? Let me answer the question for you and save you some additional speculation. No. They have access to legislative drafting notes, history, etc. They don't just flip a coin or throw a dart.

Tanetti 6 years, 4 months ago

I too am appalled at the comments here, but the ignorance doesn't surprise me. My thoughts are with the family, who surely is quite shaken up. I am so glad this little girl and her grandpa weren't seriously hurt. Unfortunately, some people on this forum would use this opportunity to blame the other driver if a car had been hit rather than a bike.A couple weeks ago I had this EXACT accident happen to me and my sons -- the minivan driver didn't even look to his right before he turned right on red onto 23rd Street from Barker, and he hit our bike trailer and tipped it over. His windows were closed and he didn't hear me screaming for him to stop. For the uninformed, a bike with a trailer on it takes longer to stop, just like a truck with a trailer on it, though in this instance stopping would have made it worse, since he himself was stopped when we entered the intersection. Fortunately, neither of my boys were hurt, just scared. They were strapped in very snugly and had helmets on. But even if I'd been a pedestrian I would have been hit -- I saw the guy NOT looking anywhere but left and we were coming from the right, and I myself KNEW in my heart I should have used the cardinal rule of biking -- ALWAYS make eye contact! You always have to compensate for inattentive drivers. That's true if you're in a car, on a bike, or on foot. And it goes the other way too -- if you're driving you have to compensate for the inattention of others, no matter their mod of transportation. I can't tell you the anger I felt at myself after that accident, even though I legally wasn't at fault, and counted my blessings that my children were unscathed.What makes me red with rage is an acquaintance of mine who has her 2-year-old daughter in a cargo trailer, not one designed for children, and it has no netting, no bumper, perhaps not even any safety straps. And this child doesn't wear a helmet, nor does the mom, but then again she was biking around town with her infant in a Baby Bjorn on her back before the baby outgrew that. It's horrifying.

JayCat_67 6 years, 4 months ago

Notajayhawk: Yeah, I could just as easily do a smart a** comment from the cyclists' perspective too, but you seem to have taken care of that for me. But you then finished the post with sense and reason which is something that seems to be lacking here most of the time. I have no illusion that I've any chance of dispelling the beliefs of those for whom everything is black and white, but it's still fun provide a little irritation for 'em every once in awhile.Seriously, I do ride a bike or run quite a bit, and when I see cyclists blowing through an intersection or doing something equally as stupid, I find it very irritating. I used to have one of those carts for my kids and they definitely affect the braking ability of the bicycle. But then again, I always rode back streets with them in tow and was always aware of what was going on around me. Even now that they're too big to ride in the cart anymore (sniff), I still avoid main roads. The ride is much more relaxing that way.

cato_the_elder 6 years, 4 months ago

Baille, despite your blathering as a committed bicyclist, you still don't see the point. Even if the truck driver were 100% at fault, aren't drivers of all kinds of conveyances frequently negligent? Knowing that, why would you risk dragging a 2-year old child behind a bicycle anywhere near where motor vehicles are operated? It's precisely that fact that some years ago caused our legislature, at the behest of long-time Lawrence resident and committed Democrat State Representative Jessie Branson, to pass a law making it illegal to transport a 2-year old child in an automobile without a strapping the child in an acceptable safety seat first. Hasn't our legislature said that if a truck driver is in fact negligent and hits your car while your child is not in a safety seat, the chances of injury to your child are significantly greater? Therefore, how can anyone in his or her right mind tow a 2-year old child in any kind of trailer behind a bicycle near automobile traffic, especially on or near 6th Street? I intend to discuss this with as many legislators as I can. If it's not illegal, it must be made so.

cato_the_elder 6 years, 4 months ago

Hometownhawk, did this accident occur on the levee?

notajayhawk 6 years, 4 months ago

David Roberts (David Roberts) says: "Perhaps some physics professor could enlighten us as to what speed threshold overcomes the ability of a cyclist to evade the moving truck. We seem to have some "expert" testimony. I want a second opinion."It's called momentum. Four thousand pounds of truck vs. a few hundred pounds of bicycle/rider/passenger. One takes longer to stop. Get all the opinions you want."My license to walk, ride a bike, run, etc. cannot be taken away from me."Maybe that's part of the problem."I mean, are we seriously suggesting that cyclists, walkers, runners, wheelchair riders, etc. be required to stop at each drive and look for oncoming traffic, A one block walk could take a week!"You stop and look both ways when you're walking, don't you? Whether or not you have the right of way?*****Baille (Anonymous) says: "No it's not and no they don't. Not when on the sidewalks. Everyone who has stated something about what is and is not illegal on this thread is dead wrong. Just do a little research. Please. It's easy."(Kansas Statutes Annotated)8-1575. Driving upon sidewalk. No person shall drive any vehicle upon a sidewalk or sidewalk area except upon a permanent or duly authorized temporary driveway.8-1586. Unlawful acts; application of regulations.(c) The provisions of K.S.A. 8-1587 to 8-1592, inclusive, which are applicable to bicycles shall apply whenever a bicycle is operated upon any highway or upon any path set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles, subject to those exceptions stated herein.8-1587. Traffic laws apply to persons riding bicycles.(All traffic laws apply to bicyclists.)Now, I realize that 8-1586 does not specifically apply to 8-1575. However, it seems pretty clear from the above citations that the intent of of the statute is to consider bicycle riders as drivers of vehicles, and that would seem to make the prohibition against driving "any vehicle upon a sidewalk" applicable. Or are you saying that bicyclists have to follow traffic laws while on the roadway, while on a bicycle-only path, but not while on the sidewalk, because there are people walking there?Just out of curiosity, Baille, had the bicyclist in this story been traveling on a bike path instead of a sidewalk when crossing the driveway, who would have been at fault?Regardless of any legal issues, there is, I believe, still such a thing as common sense. As I stated above, if I pull my compact car in front of a speeding 18-wheeler who's about to run a stop sign, it's not a big consolation that my survivors will be able to sue the guy for not granting me the right of way (except perhaps from an attorney's standpoint?).

notajayhawk 6 years, 4 months ago

"notajayhawk: The child was riding in a cart that connects behind the bicycle. It also converts into a stroller."Thanks, baille, I know what those carts look like. I was referring to the LJW's writing, not actually asking a question (the story has since been updated, but the original text stated it was a stroller being "carried" on a bicycle).*****JayCat_67 (Anonymous) says: "It's all about ME. Those bicycle riders are just a bunch of idiots and should all be locked up, 'specially if their so irresponsible as to have their kids in a cart behind them. But since our elected officials don't have the cajones to act on this, all I can say to all you bicyclists is, Stay the he!! our of MY way. If I hit you, it's your own da(rn)ed fault for being on that stupid bike to begin with. Get it?"Well, you've certainly gone a long way towards dispelling those beliefs you mock. Maybe I could just rephrase your rant from the other perspective, such as: Who cares that the streets are full of 3000 pound vehicles that can't stop on a dime, I have a right to ride a bicycle in front of them and it's all about ME.I have no reason to doubt the accounts that put the truckdriver at fault and I'm not defending him. But let's face it - a bicycle stops faster than a truck, and a little better attentiveness and defensive driving on the part of the cyclist probably could have avoided this near tragedy. I agree with those who say towing a child behind a bike around cars and trucks is no different than pushing a stroller. On the other hand, when I pushed my daughter in her stroller, I looked before crossing a vehicle path, whether road or driveway, whether or not I had the right of way.

bluerose 6 years, 4 months ago

note to all:keep your f-ing eyes open please!your gas-fueled vehicle and you are not the only beings present in the universe.i cannot tell you how many times i have not been "seen" while legally walking or cycling lately. luckily, i am always on the defensive. thank god, those persons were not injured.

notajayhawk 6 years, 4 months ago

JayCat_67 (Anonymous) says: "Notajayhawk: Yeah, I could just as easily do a smart a comment from the cyclists' perspective too, but you seem to have taken care of that for me."Just trying to be balanced. ;)Really, I have nothing against bicyclists and I believe they have the same right to the road as I do in my car. It's just a matter of simple math - yes, I agree that it's much harder to stop a bicycle with a trailer, but it's still probably easier than stopping a truck. If the bike ended up under the truck, unless the truck was moving at around 100 mph, the bike must have ridden right in front of it. Again, whether he had the right of way or not, that's not much of a consolation, laying on the ground next to a crumpled bike and being able to say "I'm the one who was right!" Especially when towing a small child. It's the equivalent of me pulling my compact car out in front of a speeding tractor-trailer just because he has a stop sign and I think he should stop.

cato_the_elder 6 years, 4 months ago

Hawk, you're still right. Anyone who pulls a two-year old child in a trailer hooked on the back of a bicycle anywhere near where motor vehicles are ought to be in jail. Just think what the outcry would be if the child had been seriously injured or killed. Consider also that it's a crime in Kansas to transport a child that age in a motor vehicle without a child safety seat. Stupidity knows no bounds, especially when bicyclists are concerned.

rdkone 6 years, 4 months ago

I've been riding bikes in Lawrence for about 3 years now and I've converted from being a somewhat aggressive rider to a super cautious rider. The fact is that in any kind of collision the biker looses. The sad fact is that the road is full of inattentive and reckless drivers. Unfortunately one must assume that any given vehicle is being driven by a driver distracted by a cell phone, by being drunk, by being sleep deprived, by being schizophrenic, by being an overly aggressive driver, or by any number of other reasons for not being focused on driving safely. Sadly, the burden falls on the biker to be overly cautious. I've pretty much given up on the roads and only use the Lawrence Bike Path and the Levee although it is still necessary to travel the streets to get to those safer locations.WARNING: There is an accident waiting to happen on the Bike Path where the sidewalk/bike path crosses the parking lot of the Aberdeen apartments near the by-pass. Drivers leaving the lot often zip across the sidewalk with no thought of possible pedestrian traffic. Again you have to assume that any given driver is not paying attention because a high percentage of them are not paying attention.

cato_the_elder 6 years, 4 months ago

Lawrenceguy, are you one of the eccentric bicyclists wearing Peter Pan outfits who clog our county roads while the rest of us are trying to get somewhere?

notajayhawk 6 years, 4 months ago

David Roberts (David Roberts) says:"Huh? Are you suggesting that I should not have the freedom to walk, run, or bike [other than downtown] on a sidewalk? WOW!"Well, first off, you just added the "on the sidewalk" part (and I still maintain that it is ludicrous on its face to say that your bicycle somehow transforms into a completely different piece of equipment subject to different rules when it leaves the pavement). Walk and run wherever you want. But when traveling on a roadway where following traffic regulations is required by law, does it really make sense to you that there's no requirement for ascertaining whether the cyclist has any clue as to what those regulations are? Or that if a cyclist who repeatedly and dangerously ignores those regulations, there's no provision under the law for preventing him from continuing to do so?"Sure, when I cross the street. But I don't turn my head around and look for traffic coming up behind me before I cross someone's driveway. I'd be stopping every 30 feet or so."Turning your head takes that much effort, does it, Dave? Wow. Poor you.*******I have said from the beginning that I believe bicyclists have as much right to the road as cars do, and that the truckdriver was at fault. But this is a simple case of "Do I want to be right or do I want to be happy?" As a couple of others have said, traveling on a bicycle surrounded by motor vehicles is inherently dangerous. It's not the same as the good old days JackRipper wants everyone to return to when the horse watched out for traffic. There are bad drivers, just as there are bad cyclists, and with the overwhelming portion of the population choosing motor vehicles as their means of travel, the odds are that cyclists will be at the wrong end of the stick unless they take measures, beyond what is required by the law, by what's 'right,' or what 'should' be, to protect themselves. Otherwise the only happy ones will be the lawyers.

ILoveLawrence 6 years, 4 months ago

I'm still appalled at some of you people. Baille - thanks for taking the time to do the legal research.

cato_the_elder 6 years, 4 months ago

I'll say it again: Anyone who pulls a 2-year old child behind a bicycle anywhere near an automobile is an idiot, and ought to be in jail. If it's illegal to transport a child that age in an automobile without a child safety seat, it's a no-brainer. There's a world of difference between pushing a child on a stroller in front of you on a sidewalk and pulling a 2-year old child, whom you can't see without turning around, behind you when you're near automobile traffic. And, Baille, your views on this appear to be as inane as your views on everything else.

notajayhawk 6 years, 4 months ago

Baille (Anonymous) says:"Well you also said ... That was wrong."Well, no. I referred to the intent of the legislature. You countered with the court's interpretation of that intent. Now, while I realize that most attorneys believe that the courts make the law, that is not the case. Laws are written by the elected representatives of the people, and while the courts interpret the legislature's intent when enforcing those laws, there is no guarantee that they get it right. The judge's interpretation in the case you cited may be precedent, but nobody knows if that's what the elected legislators had in mind when they enacted the legislation. And I still maintain that it is a ludicrous interpretation to say bicycles are one thing here but another there, and that they must follow traffic laws unless they choose to evade that responsibility by traveling a path that includes pedestrians that could be injured by that choice."Common sense has nothing at all to do with most of what has been posted on this thread. The cyclist was traveling slowly on a multi-use sidewalk when a truck, following behind the bicycle, unexpectedly and unpredictably turned across the sidewalk onto a gravel access road used only by the City, utility companies and RR workers."And herein lies the common sense that seems to be lacking: Perhaps you'd like to explain how a vehicle "following behind" a bicycle turns into its path. Common sense, Baille, says the bicyclist had full view of the truck before the impact, which is more than can be said with certainty about the truck driver. Common sense, Baille, says that the bicyclist - regardless of who had the right of way - was in a better position to avoid the collision. Common sense, Baille, would seem to dictate that a grandfather towing his two year old granddaughter behind a bicycle might exercise a degree of caution greater than what's minimally required of him by the court's interpretation of the law. It is the exact same situation as a compact car that has the right of way jumping out in front of a tractor-trailer; the driver may be in the 'right,' but he is still just as dead, and more than a little foolish for not avoiding the collision if he could have just because the law is on his side.[continued]

Richard Heckler 6 years, 4 months ago

The 6th street cyclist on the sidewalk was a smart cyclist in Lawrence,Kansas. The truck driver was not paying attention. Would this same truck driver have run over a person at that same location if that person was not a bike? Probably. That said when using the busiest routes we choose the sidewalks as a precautionary measure. Mostly I choose to avoid the very busy routes. 20 years ago we lived in the Stone Canyon building located on west 6th. Bicycling to town and back was not unusual. Sharing the 6th street sidewalks was our choice always, choosing a variety of routes with cross walks etc etc. Sidewalks on busy throughofares perhaps need to be 10' wide. Sharing the roads however is the rule which is posted all over town. All vehicles used as transportation have a right to a portion of the road. Sharing the road with patience is a virtue. There is no reason cyclists should be condemned for making use of roads. We all pay taxes for throughofares.The only sidewalks that forbid riding bikes in Lawrence is on downtown Mass Street.

Baille 6 years, 4 months ago

"t is illegal to ride a bicycle on the sidewalk. They must obey all the same laws as motorized vehicles."No it's not and no they don't. Not when on the sidewalks. Everyone who has stated something about what is and is not illegal on this thread is dead wrong. Just do a little research. Please. It's easy.The cyclist and the kid were perfectly legal. They had no obligation to stop on the sidewalk as they rode past the gravel driveway. They have no obligation to stop at an intersection that lacks a pedestrian traffic control device so long as the bicycle is traveling on the sidewalks.And, Cato? Your opinion means nothing. You have proven to be just another half-baked crank too in love with your delusions of grandeur to contribute in a meaningful way. I am happily writing you off as an official Waste of Time and will no longer be acknowledging your bs. You can tell me if you fell the saw about me. I don't care. You aren't worth as much attention as I have given you.

Sean Livingstone 6 years, 4 months ago

Anyone ever live in Toronto, Seattle or even Atlanta? The roads are so crowded with cars and yet bikes are very common scene, and I rarely heard of cars or trucks hitting the bikes. People who say that bikes must be off the roads must be pretty intolerant!

Baille 6 years, 4 months ago

Good point, hometownhawk. At this same time of day, I passed or saw several people walking their kids in strollers. This just as easily could have happened to them. Maybe we should not walk our kids on sidewalks anymore, either, huh?

hometownhawk 6 years, 4 months ago

What are you talking about bmaestas? That's such b.s.! You don't know what you're talking about so just stay out of it....sarcasm, of course. Just seems like every post has to be ridiculed in some way so I figured it'd have to be done.

bearded_gnome 6 years, 4 months ago

like the old saying goes:"if you want to avoid being hit by my driving, ... stay off the sidewalk!" just so very glad biker/baby not seriously hurt! I've probably passed this biker/baby combo on the levee. so, according to the dorks on here like b3, what was the biker supposed to do? hold baby in arms, walk beside bike, go home that way? after being on the levee, just how were they supposed to get home at all? sounds more like truck driver is at fault to me.

cato_the_elder 6 years, 4 months ago

None2, you apparently don't get it either. I don't wish to dispute who was at fault. I'm more than willing to stipulate that the truck driver was 100% negligent, which was the precise point of my earlier posts. That's not the issue - the safety of 2-year old children is. Please reread what I have said and try to understand it. If you can't, then you can't, and I'm not going to repeat it again.

Richard Heckler 6 years, 4 months ago

I say widen the sidewalks on 6th street to 10'. I say there are some drivers that need to be paying attention cuz they do not own the sidewalks EITHER! If drivers cannot pay attention don't drive.The driver should have received a citation for reckless driving and irresponsible driving.On the marquee across K-10 it says Watch Out for Motorcycles. I see billboards saying the same thing. That says car and truck drivers are not paying attention. If drivers cannot pay attention don't drive.

notajayhawk 6 years, 4 months ago

[continued]"...but that kind of callous crap doesn't even come close to describing what I do for a living."First of all I said "lawyers." But whether I was referring specifically or not to you, you have some traits in common with those of whom I spoke. You, like most attorneys I have known, seem to have a belief that the law exists separate from, and even somehow above, the realm of human beings. But the fact is that laws are made both by and for human beings, and are made to serve human beings, rather than vice versa. As such, common sense is something that shouldn't be lacking in the law. I said from my first post that it appeared the driver was at fault, at least legally. But that doesn't mean the law makes sense, and maybe it should. If the bicyclist was in a better position to do so and could have avoided the collision, then he should have, whether or not the law said so or not.

nobody1793 6 years, 4 months ago

Isn't it possible they were riding on the sidewalk and were crossing the street at a designated intersection? Isn't it possible that Bigfoot distracted the driver of the truck?I, for one, am going to check back with LJWorld.com for more updates as they develop.

cato_the_elder 6 years, 4 months ago

Frankly, Jack, as far as bicycles go Lawrence is relatively tame. As an earlier poster stated, Toronto is one city where bicycles rule the roost and, based on my experiences there, they can be quite dangerous. The sidewalks and streets are teeming with them, and believe me, in their minds they have the right-of-way over pedestrians 100% of the time. You can't open a cab door without risking one of them running into your door and splatting on the pavement (it's called "crocodiling," but for what reason I don't know). The last time I was in Toronto I innocently nailed two of them while opening cab doors, and in each case they somehow thought it was my fault. I had looked first, but they came out of nowhere. In one case, a crowd gathered, immediately reminding me of Joseph Cotten and Alida Valli being surrounded by suspicious Viennese in Carol Reed's "The Third Man," and I got the hell out of there fast. As long as Lawrence avoids that kind of bicycle mania, I can live with it.

Baille 6 years, 4 months ago

"I thought it was illegal to ride a bike on the walk? "Then you have not been paying attention to these bicycles threads where the law has been discussed ad infinitum, hawk, and you are posting from a position of ignorance.notajayhawk: The child was riding in a cart that connects behind the bicycle. It also converts into a stroller. The cyclist was wearing a helmet, the cart had a flag on it, and both were traveling lawfully on the sidewalk north of Sixth Street at the Kentucky intersection. I arrived shortly after the accident. The bicycle and cart were just north of the sidewalk on the dirt/gravel road that heads north to the river. The child cart was still wedged against the truck's bumper and the attached bicycle was on its side. It was easy to see where everyone was traveling and how the accident occurred. It is very fortunate that the child was not hit. I can only assume that the truck saw them, but too late to stop completely.

David Roberts 6 years, 4 months ago

Perhaps some posters have more information than was provided in this article, but it seems that a lot of speculation and blame is being cast about (mostly in the direction of the cyclist, which just dumbfounds me).Perhaps some physics professor could enlighten us as to what speed threshold overcomes the ability of a cyclist to evade the moving truck. We seem to have some "expert" testimony. I want a second opinion.Perhaps some traffic engineer could explain why Lawrence has consented to the construction of so many driveways. I mean, are we seriously suggesting that cyclists, walkers, runners, wheelchair riders, etc. be required to stop at each drive and look for oncoming traffic, A one block walk could take a week!Drivers-keep in mind, you have been granted a license to drive. It is revocable. My license to walk, ride a bike, run, etc. cannot be taken away from me. Either you are baiting the readers of your posts (and having a good laugh about the reactions you get in subsequent posts) or you really believe that the victim should have avoided the accident (ie. why do you keep hitting my fist with your face!). Simply absurd.

Baille 6 years, 4 months ago

Well you also said, "However, it seems pretty clear from the above citations that the intent of of the statute is to consider bicycle riders as drivers of vehicles, and that would seem to make the prohibition against driving "any vehicle upon a sidewalk" applicable." That was wrong. Bicycles follow the rules of the road when they are on the road and pedestrian rules when they are on sidewalks. That makes sense.Common sense has nothing at all to do with most of what has been posted on this thread. The cyclist was traveling slowly on a multi-use sidewalk when a truck, following behind the bicycle, unexpectedly and unpredictably turned across the sidewalk onto a gravel access road used only by the City, utility companies and RR workers. And you want to compare this to your pulling your subcompact out in front of a semi? You want to make this about lawyers and lawsuits? How pathetic.Lucrative money making situation? Crap, man. I don't know how many people you have counseled who have lost a loved one, or have been crippled, or blinded, or raped, or beaten, but that kind of callous crap doesn't even come close to describing what I do for a living.

Baille 6 years, 4 months ago

I know. I know. I got sucked in. :)It's just it was an awful day for those people. But a lucky one as well. Very emotional I am sure. Then they get blasted on here before anyone really knows what happened. "Stay out of the road." Just ticks me off.And I am supposed to be working on something else. Nothing like righteous indignation to feed to fires of procrastination. I'm done now.

iMaMoM 6 years, 4 months ago

On Friday afternoon I seen a lady riding a bike that was pulling one of those carts behind her. She had a small child in the cart, in addition to two other little boys each on their own bikes trailing behind. She was coming from the street that goes to the Country Club and crossing Rockledge. Instead of leading them up to the intersection (6th Street and Rockledge) to cross, she darted across Rockledge, bumping up on the curb with the bicycle and cart, with the two little boys following lead. She sat there waiting for the light on 6th Street to change, laughing hysterically. I couldn't help but wonder if she realized what type of potentially dangerous situation she had put herself and these children in? She crossed behind vehicles that were stopped at the light on Rockledge, which would have obstructed a driver's view that was heading East on 6th and turning left onto Rockledge. The driver wouldn't have seen them until it was too late. Take a moment to think before acting!

notajayhawk 6 years, 4 months ago

How do you carry a stroller on a bicycle?Another stellar headline by the LJW, btw - "Truck strikes bicycle" - where there any people involved?

ILoveLawrence 6 years, 4 months ago

I am appalled at the comments on this post. I biked past this accident shortly after it happened. The truck was turning onto what many people do not consider to be a street - a dirt/gravel path going to the levee. I wouldn't probably have looked when crossing it either. The child was bawling and I would have too - it is amazing the child was not injured. PLEASE DO NOT USE THIS POST AS A RANT AGAINST BICYCLISTS, LIBERALS, ETC.! This was a no more than 2-year-old child who through no fault of her own or her grandfather's could have been seriously injured or killed because a truck was just not looking.(And as for the not bicycling on sidewalks, as a bicyclist myself - horrible liberal Nazi that I am - I do not ride on sidewalks on most streets, but when I must go somewhere that entails 6th street or Kentucky/Tennessee (I generally try to find an alternate route if possible), I will ride on the sidewalk, because frankly I'm more of a hazard on those streets than on the sidewalk.)

iMaMoM 6 years, 4 months ago

JackRipper (Anonymous) says: iMaMoM glad you caught that example of dangerous biking because we all know that the cyclist in this town are causing all the accidents that occur daily in town. One bicycle accident and it makes the headlines, so many car accidents most of the time they don't make the news. Let get the car drivers to think for once.My thoughts would be the same had she been walking, or even driving in a car with children bouncing all over and not in safety restraints. My point is that she was the adult in the situation and should be setting a better example, and not putting small children's lives at risk due to her poor judgement.

eotw33 6 years, 4 months ago

hawk - this is not a town for for kids in the back of carts on bikes? sounds like we need to get rid of some people then, because there a lot of kids in this town. It's not hard to NOT hit a bike, i've managed just fine

OnlyTheOne 6 years, 4 months ago

Note to bc, that was irresponsible! Considering a young child was being towed by the bicyclist.and while I'm at itDCSucks sorry no, an "intersection" is just that not anything you choose to call it for your personal gratification.

JayCat_67 6 years, 4 months ago

Nope, Bozo, the air supply could be compromised, it could collapse, it could get damp and moldy causing a life threatening allergic reaction. I've just gotten used to the fact that breathing makes us all idiots. Life will be so much simpler for you when you accept this fact too. :-)

cato_the_elder 6 years, 4 months ago

JackRipper, you have demonstrated my point emphatically, which is much appreciated. Yes, motor vehicles of all kinds indeed have the potential to be quite deadly. That's precisely why anyone who tows a two-year old child in a trailer behind a bicycle anywhere near motor vehicle traffic is a complete idiot. It's also precisely why if it's not already illegal, it should be made so.

Baille 6 years, 4 months ago

And for those who continue to post in ignorance, the bike trailer used by this guy has the child securely strapped in. It isn't some flat-bed, wide open trailer you would see on the back of a tractor - although I rode on more than a few of those as a kid, and in the bucket of our tractors as well.The way these bike trailers work is that a strap goes across the waist of the child and between the legs with two straps going over either shoulder. The child is further protected from flying debris by a mesh covering that can have a plastic covering pulled down over it in case of cold weather or light rain. I could not tell if the child was wearing a helmet.

bearded_gnome 6 years, 4 months ago

Maybe some levity is in order! people are gettin' red in the face. Here are some rather appropriate bumperstickers for that truck, and for some posters on here:If you don't like my driving, stay off the sidewalk.I hear you lost your cat? Check under my tire.I soupport publik education!All generalizations are false.Seen on an old, beat-up car: "This is not an abandoned vehicle."I brake for no apparent reason. I can handle pain until it hurts.I'm objective; I object to everything.If everything is coming your way, then you're in the wrong lane.Gravity always gets me down.I've given up trying to escape from reality; they always find me anyway.They told me I was gullible... and I believed them.You are only young once, but you can stay immature indefinitely.Support bacteria! It's the only culture some people have.Honk if you like peace and quiet.

worker_bee 6 years, 4 months ago

the only place in lawrence where it is illegal to ride a bike on the sidewalk is mass street.

ridinthefence 6 years, 4 months ago

Lately on my way to work i have followed a guy on a bike with a buggy hooked to it with his child inside riding down mass street. Ok sorry i just would NOT put my child at risk that way. I understand the points of view "we (bicyclists) have just as much right to be on the street as you in your car" but.... put your child in a basket and drag them on the streets of Lawrence??? No way. Its hard enough avoiding Robert Gilmore in his sheet.

David Roberts 6 years, 4 months ago

notajayhawk says:[presenting the contrary view to JayCat_67's tongue-in-cheek mocking-and apparently espousing the view that] ... I have a right to ride a bicycle in front of them and it's all about ME....[and further] "It's just a matter of simple math ...If the bike ended up under the truck, unless the truck was moving at around 100 mph, the bike must have ridden right in front of it....But let's face it - a bicycle stops faster than a truck, and a little better attentiveness and defensive driving on the part of the cyclist probably could have avoided this near tragedy.David Roberts says:"Perhaps some physics professor could enlighten us as to what speed threshold overcomes the ability of a cyclist to evade the moving truck. We seem to have some "expert" testimony. I want a second opinion."notajayhawk says: It's called momentum. Four thousand pounds of truck vs. a few hundred pounds of bicycle/rider/passenger. One takes longer to stop. Get all the opinions you want."I guess I just don't agree that the cyclist intentionally rode in front of the truck as it was turning. Your comment just unfairly assumes that the cyclist was not cautious when crossing the driveway/gravel path and actually had an opportunity to stop in avoidance of the truck.*****David Roberts says:"My license to walk, ride a bike, run, etc. cannot be taken away from me."notajayhawk says:Maybe that's part of the problem.Huh? Are you suggesting that I should not have the freedom to walk, run, or bike [other than downtown] on a sidewalk? WOW!*****notajayhawk says: "I looked before crossing a vehicle path, whether road or driveway, whether or not I had the right of way."David Roberts says:"I mean, are we seriously suggesting that cyclists, walkers, runners, wheelchair riders, etc. be required to stop at each drive and look for oncoming traffic, A one block walk could take a week!"notajayhawk says:"You stop and look both ways when you're walking, don't you? Whether or not you have the right of way?"Sure, when I cross the street. But I don't turn my head around and look for traffic coming up behind me before I cross someone's driveway. I'd be stopping every 30 feet or so.

Baille 6 years, 4 months ago

"And herein lies the common sense that seems to be lacking: Perhaps you'd like to explain how a vehicle "following behind" a bicycle turns into its path."It didn't. The truck hit the bike trailer. It hit the cyclist from the rear left. I was there right after the collision. If anything the cyclist heard the truck trying to stop and then got hit.I have never and will never argue that a cyclist should put himself in danger because the law says he has a right to be where he is. You can try to backpedal over what you said all you want, but it sits up there in black and white for all to see. And you can ascribe all sorts of motivations to me as well, but that doesn't add anything to your argument."Common sense says the bicyclist had full view of the truck before the impact, which is more than can be said with certainty about the truck driver."That is absolutely the most fallacious bit of fecal matter I have heard tonight. I saw it close up. The cyclist was riding on the sidewalk when it got hit from the rear left by a truck the cyclist could not see. The truck heading west on 6th would have seen the cyclist to its right on the sidewalk had it been paying attention and certainly should have seen it before it turned into the bike trailer. Give it a rest. You are wrong on the facts. You are wrong on the law. And for all your talk about how common it is, you are not making a damn bit of sense.

Baille 6 years, 4 months ago

"8-1575. Driving upon sidewalk. No person shall drive any vehicle upon a sidewalk or sidewalk area except upon a permanent or duly authorized temporary driveway."Try again."K.S.A. 8-1575 obviously does not apply to bicycles, as it prohibits any person from driving a vehicle on a sidewalk, and a bicycle is not a vehicle. See K.S.A. 8-1405 and 8-1485. The court found the statute applied to Schallenberger, however, through the operation of K.S.A. 8-1587, which provides that every person riding a bicycle is subject to all the duties of a driver of a vehicle. This rule applies only to persons riding a bicycle on a roadway. However, according to Schallenberger's theory, she was not on *234 the roadway. Roadway is defined as the improved portion of the highway used for vehicular travel. K.S.A. 8-1459. Thus, we see the specific statutes applying vehicular rules to bicycles do so only when the bicyclist is using the roadway."Schallenberger v. Rudd, 244 Kan. 230 (1989).Same case: bikes follow the vehicle rules when traveling on the road and pedestrian rules when traveling on the sidewalks. The truck hit the bike from the side. Bike never had a chance to stop or avoid the collision.Also look at the Lawrence city code sect 17-702: http://www.lawrenceks.org/city_code/system/files/chapter17.pdfAs for fault, the only "bike paths" are the ones marked on the roads - so the truck in both instances would be at fault.

gccs14r 6 years, 4 months ago

The problem is that there is almost no penalty for running over pedestrians, cyclists, and skaters. If we started the penalties at criminal negligence and went up from there, maybe drivers would start paying more attention.

bearded_gnome 6 years, 4 months ago

whew! when the bicyclist started into the driveway, I suspect that even if he'd rotated his neck around to relative course 225, he'd have seen that truck. yes, seen the truck but wouldn't necessarily have assumed it would overtake him at its higher speed and turn in on his position on the driveway. if you face forward at relative course 0, try to rotate to 225. its impossible. you can't even rotate 270. note to the impaired. relative 270 is due left. 180 is directly behind, and you're not looking that way unless you're being exorcised! I do agree with nota and CTE that the bicycle-trailers can't be very safe, since you're only pulling it on two wheels. no, I'm saying nothing about bicyclists' rights. no, I'm certainly not antibike. The 6th street cyclist on the sidewalk was a smart cyclist in Lawrence,Kansas. The truck driver was not paying attention. Would this same truck driver haverun over a person at that same location if that person was not a bike? Probably.---merrill"smart cyclist?" huh? "run over a person at that same location if that person was not a bike? "---senility is indeed creeping, merrill.
57chevy makes refs to people reproducing with their children, walmart, nascar, people, etc. btw, the politically correct is "agro-american" please refrain from the pajoritive "redneck!" what a wonderful display of latte lawrence liberal tolerance. what a stunning display of sparkling rhetoric!

JerryStubbs 6 years, 4 months ago

This case seems unusual to me. First of all, most of the people listed in the photo are from Wichita. Did the truck driver know the bicyclist?Apparently as they were both going the same direction the truck of course had to be going faster, so essentially it had to be behind the bike then for some reason turned onto that dead end path that essentially serves only city maintenance. Were they lost? making a sudden turn to try and turn around? I guess that kind of truck sits up higher so the driver couldnt see the bike as he was so close to it.If the truck driver hit the bike from behind, I think that makes it an open and shut case, doesn't it? Probably the truck drivers only chance would be if the biker was wearing headphones, which is illegal. I can't see how an argument against biking has any merit. There were basically in a city park, not on a street or highway riding in the car lanes.

Baille 6 years, 4 months ago

Well, since I have your permission to continue to post I may do that, lsense. I may have to add in some stunningly obvious observations to go along with my legal trash, but I will be sure to give you credit when I do.

Baille 6 years, 4 months ago

"Probably the truck drivers only chance would be if the biker was wearing headphones, which is illegal."It is?

JerryStubbs 6 years, 4 months ago

Since the truck was the one that changed his path, from driving on 6th street, to driving on this side road, and the bike was continuing on a steady path on the sidewalk, the truck would have to yield.If the bike had suddenly come off the side into the path of the truck on 6th street, that might be a different matter. It is kind of scarey walking or riding in the vicinity of that big intersection, 6th, Mass, and the two bridges. It's not only a major intersection for automobile traffic, but it's between two city parks, and a major recreational area of the city, and city hall, so it's an important pedestrian area.

jonas 6 years, 4 months ago

windex (Anonymous) says:"b3 and hawk, what the heck is WRONG with you?"Hawk is permanently grouchy. B3 is just a troll who gets off on people correctly calling his postings garbage, though some do go a little far in calling him an idiot. He consistently gets exactly what he wants. As for others, since this concerns bicycles, I think a common thought train goes something like this.bicycle = not car = not status quo + green = liberal + Al Gore = contempt + hate = must be biker's fault

gccs14r 6 years, 4 months ago

You make a good point, Jerry. Maybe the charge against the truck driver should be attempted murder. That'd wake up the bicycle haters and make them pay attention. Until car drivers can demonstrate that they have learned to be courteous, observant, and safe, maybe driving should be banned in Lawrence (issue an annual revokable permit for $500 a year, give applicants a real skills and knowledge test, and make their vehicles pass a safety inspection). At a minimum, Mass St. should be car-free from 6th to 11th. Put in a trolley to tote diners and shoppers up and down the street, and extend the sidewalks out to the trolley tracks so that businesses can have outdoor areas without impeding pedestrian traffic.

xfactor 6 years, 4 months ago

As with most discussion boards on ljworld.com, they are filled with anonymous posters making accusational comments that most likely wouldn't be made if they were required to provide their real name. In this instance, it is interesting to see the attitudes of some toward individuals riding on bicycles. Cycling used to be a central part of my life and I spent 10 to 12 hours a week riding on county roads with no shoulder. On almost every ride there was at least one vehicle who would drive past me so close that the momentum of their vehicle would make my bike wobble slightly. I was once shot with an automatic paint ball rifle on Douglas County road 458 ane was hit about 7 times. After my son was born about a year and a half ago, I had second thoughts about riding my bike with its inherent dangers. I found myself spending less time on the road and more on my trainer at home. After Lt. Dillon was killed while on a bike I made the decision to stop riding completely. As a father I guess I am no longer willing to take the risk of spending that amount of time on the road. The insensitve comments I read regarding this article further lead me to believe my cycling days are over. I believe the anger directed toward cyclists doesn't necessarily stem from bikes on the road, rather it is anger merely projected at cyclists and most likely spills over into other areas of their lives.

Baille 6 years, 4 months ago

Ah, I see. Because clearly the fact that people were repeatedly misstating the law as it applies to sidewalks, bike paths and roadways is no reason to discuss that law or to offer links and citations so that people could educate themselves. No. That's just crazy. After all everything can be boiled down to what you learned in kindergarten, can't it? Pay attention. Be nice. Don't sneeze on your neighbor or call them names. That sort of thing. I will keep that in mind. Next time I want to discuss the law with someone or point out where someone has gotten the law or a legal concept wrong, I will just hold back and think to myself, "What would lsense do? What kind of pablum can I reduce this concept down to so that lsense won't get confused or ticked off because someone is writing more than one or two sentences?" When I get stuck, I will just fall back on that one universal rule: "Pay attention, people. Just pay attention." You have shown me the light today. Thank you, lsense.

jonas 6 years, 4 months ago

notajayhawk: You know, I was wondering myself about the style guide that apparently demands we remove people from accident headlines. It was the same with the moped fatality. Evidently all of our vehicles are fully self-propelling.

dirkleisure 6 years, 4 months ago

hawkperchedatriverfront (Anonymous) says: These birkenstock unshaven leg women and the daddies who want to strut their stuff on bikes with kids in a cart:keeep on taking them out into traaffic.it is the modern day version of popuation control.------------------------------It is sickening that the moderators of this forum would allow any individual who would post this to continue to maintain an account.Absolutely sickening.

JerryStubbs 6 years, 4 months ago

I doubt attempted murder, but whenever there is a collision there had to be some kind of violation, I bet you can ask any policeman. Unless there is some kind of "act of God" exception, when the nose of one vehical contacts the rear part of another vehicle guess who is at fault? Maybe as simple as failure to yield, or tailgating. you can bet they will think of something appropriate. It just seems unusual that this guy suddenly turns onto a dead end maintenance path and just by chance clips this guy on the bike.

MaryKatesPillStash 6 years, 4 months ago

If pulling a child on a bike is so dispicable to some of you, what about walking while holding the child's hand? If a motorist didn't see the bicycle (with a flag on it!), then why would they see a pedestrian with a child?

stinerides 6 years, 4 months ago

what is wrong with some of you people? from what some of you say nobody is allowed to enjoy an afternoon on a bike with their child? to me this sounds completely normal, maybe some people should learn what spending quality time with the kids really means! THE VEHICLE HIT SOMEONE ON THE SIDEWALK!

xfactor 6 years, 4 months ago

"And no, I do not call names, I just call things as I see them." You called Baille a Moron.

bearded_gnome 6 years, 4 months ago

okay, I've read today's installment in:cars vs bikes...hate and hate. none2, very nicely put. yes, people express such elitist negativity about lawrence. obviously, they don't know how much worse things are in many other American cities. your idea about boutiquing wal-mart, brilliant! and absolutely correct, they want new york on a lawrence budget!
LMAO! Hawk gives child rearing advice!hawk's description of hairy-legged women has more to do with his tortured psyche than the actual events of this article! Jerry Stubbs, it isn't illegal to wear the phones, as far as I know, unless you are operating your vehicle on the street. you need to consider, the bike was on a sidewalk. you think that area is scarey? what would make that area not scarey? is it city hall that makes it scarey for you? biker couldn't see truck before truck hit him. hear truck approach, too late. again: thank God biker and child are not hurt bad. this accident could have been so much worse.
oh yes, Baille,I appreciate your "wannabe legal stuff" and thank you for posting it. unfortunately, going all the way back to the new testament, we know that when "the law" is expressed, there is an automatic rebellion started in the breast of most people. human nature.

Baille 6 years, 4 months ago

Brilliant insights, lsense. I wish we could all be more like you.

Baille 6 years, 4 months ago

No no. You are right. People should pay attention. That is helpful. It fleshes out what really happened and explains the law in a way that people can understand and use.People should pay attention. I don't know why that wasn't said long ago. Brilliant, lsense. Absolutely brilliant. And you didn't even have to revert to name calling. Nicely done, my friend. Nicely done.

Baille 6 years, 4 months ago

Those aren't my rules, lsense. Those are rules I attributed to you. I saw them as exemplars of your pay-attention, the-sky-is-blue insights.I don't care if you call people names - not even me. Coming from one of your obvious intelligence - one whose posts consistently "are above a lot of people's heads" - such a call out is an honor, sir. The fact that you have now referred to me individually across several threads is just that much more of an honor. Thank you.

Baille 6 years, 4 months ago

"As with most discussion boards on ljworld.com, they are filled with anonymous posters making accusational comments that most likely wouldn't be made if they were required to provide their real name."I agree with that (and admittedly am guilty of going too far on occasion as well). I will still post anonymously for many reasons, but I would be in support of a rating system like they do at cjonline.com. Even that little bit of feedback would work to encourage most people to remain civil .

Commenting has been disabled for this item.